Scientists believe they can trump any opponent by saying, “Where is your physical evidence?” That statement – their reflexive go-to statement – is the core of their fallacy, because it has already excluded all hidden variables, non-observables, and the whole noumenal inside of reality.

Blabbering on about “evidence” exposes the bankruptcy of your capacity to present a rational argument. No rational, necessary argument has any reliance whatsoever on empirical contingency. None of the eternal truths of reason requires any human senses, or any human experiences, or any human “evidence”. In other words, the eternal truths of reason – the rational basis of existence – have zero reliance on human science.

Just as you could not have a smartphone serving up semantic content without a syntactic smartphone technology to enable it, you cannot have an empirical world without a syntactic framework to support it, which is provided by eternal and necessary mathematics.

What is a perceptual “proof”? You can observe the world forever and it will not explain itself to you. What is physical evidence? All physical evidence is interpreted according to some paradigm or other which is created by conception, not perception, hence is unperceivable and contradicts perceptualism.