Such as?
I didn't want to write 10,000 words on the matter, just to make a simple point. But if you have other factors that are relevant, by all means, tell us what they are. I can only hope it isn't another round of "Type I error zzzzzzzzzz... Type II error zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz."
I don’t have a lot of motivation to try and prove anything to some folks who seem hell-bent on swimming in thick blackness.
The TYPE I VS TYPE II ERROR stuff is a valid point. It seems to be dismissed because folks don’t like to admit the truth of what I say about it. Rigid, narrow, dogmatic, Religion-of-Scientism bias is a hard task master—along with pride.
Let me see if I can come up with one class of the sort of thing I was talking about. . . .
There is an assumption in the perspective you presented that there are NO channels of communication, evidence, observation than those we are in limited awareness of from our limited perspective.
That’s silly.
Even our limited understanding postulates 11 or so other dimensions.
Then consider the spiritual dimension.
What if every atom has some communication with it’s Creator.
There’s all manner of conceivable possibilities. Walling them all off as impossible by fiat is certainly not scientific.