IF a claim of no evidence is made with respect to the claim of X; and X can be shown to be incoherent, then it would seem to be the case that the claim of there being no evidence can be considered correct given that evidence is literally an impossibility. Or am I missing something?
There is also the issue of the term evidence given the different meanings assigned to the term, however, that is not a primary point of concern at this moment.
IF a claim of no evidence is made with respect to the claim of X; and X can be shown to be incoherent, then it would seem to be the case that the claim of there being no evidence can be considered correct given that evidence is literally an impossibility. Or am I missing something?
There is also the issue of the term evidence given the different meanings assigned to the term, however, that is not a primary point of concern at this moment.