Actually they are; it's just that some meet the absolute criteria closer than others, and are therefore "ranked" accordingly.
that the type of evidence in existence or factual claims is determined by the field of discussion and by the metaphysical nature of the entity in the claim under question.
What metephysicial nature?
No, just because you have not discovered it does not mean that it is not known
I said discovered, not invented or imagined, or blindly believed, presumed, assumed, presupposed. If sometihng "supernatural" has been disocvered, then please tell us where it was discovery and when, and what exactly is it that was discoevred. If you don't mind, that is.
and that the type of evidence in existence or factual claims is determined by the field of discussion and by the metaphysical nature of the entity in the claim under question,
What metaphysical nature?.
all you are doing is precluding the very possibility of any of the available historical evidence counting as proof
What "historical" evidence?
Is that a pun?
Cordially,
What "absolute criteria" would that be?
What metephysicial nature?
Not unlike what you referred to earlier when you stated that "our proofs must be compatible with our nature", I am referring to the essential properties of the things under discussion; "history" "event", "hot stove", "claim", "criteria", "proof", "assumption", "concept", "knowledge", "reason", "nature", "justification" "truth" and so on.
I said discovered, not invented or imagined, or blindly believed, presumed, assumed, presupposed. If sometihng "supernatural" has been disocvered, then please tell us where it was discovery and when, and what exactly is it that was discoevred. If you don't mind, that is.
The resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead as an event in space/time history - would that qualify as something supernatural in your mind?
Cordially,