That's a lot of important details on how to think about these issues involving lack of evidence. I think the strongest case the materialist can make against the validity of your claim is the following...
And even that has its limitations because while there is no direct evidence, but there can be inferences based on the evidence or evidence that suggests planetary consciousness.
Getting back to the no evidence scenario. If we're honest, I think the nature of the claim does matter. Thinking of my past debates on the resurrection, supernatural claims (or similar sounding claims) tend to be dismissed a priori while UNevidenced natural claims (such as Jesus's body being stolen) are not dismissed outright. Clearly, there is a double standard here in terms of how UNevidenced claims are treated and in terms of what's considered possible.
Lack of Direct Evidence: Materialists tend to rely on empirical evidence, and there is no direct empirical evidence indicating that planets possess consciousness. The evidence for intelligent life on Earth can be explained through evolutionary processes and natural selection without necessarily invoking planetary consciousness.
And even that has its limitations because while there is no direct evidence, but there can be inferences based on the evidence or evidence that suggests planetary consciousness.
Getting back to the no evidence scenario. If we're honest, I think the nature of the claim does matter. Thinking of my past debates on the resurrection, supernatural claims (or similar sounding claims) tend to be dismissed a priori while UNevidenced natural claims (such as Jesus's body being stolen) are not dismissed outright. Clearly, there is a double standard here in terms of how UNevidenced claims are treated and in terms of what's considered possible.
Last edited: