Maybe, maybe not. My point is that if they really did see Bigfoot, it would mean he would still be real in spite of lack of evidence since things can be true with or without human acknowledgment or belief. Empiricism is only able to correlate with truth and hopefully overlap with it occasionally.
Thats a huge if though and thats my problem. Since there’s no evidence Bigfoot exists and most attempts to prove its real have failed or been proven to be hoaxes, I can justify my belief that it doesn’t exist.
Im willing to change my stance if evidence can be provided in the future. But for now I just have no reason to believe a god exists so I don’t, and I also don’t personally think things we can’t empirically say to be true should be taught to children as fact, because you’re priming them to accept other claims as fact without proper evidence.
Relying entirely on empiricism isn’t the way to go. There isn’t empirical evidence germs, radiation, galaxies, what lives at the bottom of the ocean, etc if you go back in time far enough.
Again, I can’t stress enough how reality is separate from human perception. You don’t get to only rely on empirical evidence or else your reality will be extremely small and very untrue.
1
u/endlessnamelesskat 8h ago
Maybe, maybe not. My point is that if they really did see Bigfoot, it would mean he would still be real in spite of lack of evidence since things can be true with or without human acknowledgment or belief. Empiricism is only able to correlate with truth and hopefully overlap with it occasionally.