Share your evidence for Christianity

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
I yield. I am not sure how else to discuss this. So if you want to say that I am a hypocrite then I accept that.

If you find any empirical evidence that proves your faith I'd love to discuss it. However, I do not find it interesting to keep saying that empirical evidence is the best way to understand the universe.

:)
You keep telling us that it is illogical to hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, yet you yourself hold a belief for which there is no empirical evidence, i.e, that all evidence must be empirical in nature.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
If you have any evidence that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted which proves that all things real must be able to be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted, please present it.
I'm not making that claim, I'm only making the claim that I made. The claim you state above of course gets you into that self-referential knot. The claim I make doesn't, and still gets you empiricism.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
I know. LHA is. He thinks I said something disparaging the value of empirical evidence. Can you find where I have?
I just said that I have no interest in explaining that empirical evidence is the best way to verify what is real in the universe. Its like explaining that math is the best way to figure out numbers.

If you are an adult and you see everything empirical evidence has revealed and still are not sure if it is the way to prove things then I have nothing new to say.

Again, I yield.
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
I know. LHA is. He thinks I said something disparaging the value of empirical evidence. Can you find where I have?
Then why respond to ME with this:
If you have any evidence that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted which proves that all things real must be able to be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted, please present it.
What was the point of that?

And, unless you're just practicing your debate skills, why continue to engage with how LHA presented the case for empiricism when there is the alternative one - mine - which doesn't get you into the self-referential knot that LHA's does?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Then why respond to ME with this:

What was the point of that?

And, unless you're just practicing your debate skills, why continue to engage with how LHA presented the case for empiricism when there is the alternative one - mine - which doesn't get you into the self-referential knot that LHA's does?
Rather than analyze the motive or advisability of posing the question, take a crack at answering it:

If you have any evidence that can be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted which proves that all things real must be able to be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted, please present it.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
but that's a different conversation from whether empiricism needs to be grounded empirically. It doesn't.
How do you prove or ground an empirical view without empirical evidence? I do not understand.

Empiricism is defined as, "the theory that all knowledge is derived from sense-experience." So how do your prove something empirically without evidence that can best tested with the senses?

What non-empirical evidence are you thinking of?
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Rather than analyze the motive or advisability of posing the question, take a crack at answering it:
It's perfectly legitimate to challenge the advisability of posing a question; for instance, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Note that I'm not saying your question makes a hidden, unwarranted assumption like the wife-beating question does.

Your question frames the justification for empiricism in such a way that makes a self-referential knot out of empiricism, but empiricism doesn't necessarily have to fall into that trap. I showed you the other way to ground empiricism that doesn't fall into that trap, so why would I engage with your question?
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
Gus said, "but that's a different conversation from whether empiricism needs to be grounded empirically. It doesn't."

So I wonder if empiricism doesn't need to be grounded empirically then how do you ground it?

Explain what you mean by grounding empiricism empirically. Or better yet empirically prove that all valid evidence is empirical in nature.
 

stiggy wiggy

Well-known member
It's perfectly legitimate to challenge the advisability of posing a question; for instance, "When did you stop beating your wife?" Note that I'm not saying your question makes a hidden, unwarranted assumption like the wife-beating question does.

Your question frames the justification for empiricism in such a way that makes a self-referential knot out of empiricism, but empiricism doesn't necessarily have to fall into that trap. I showed you the other way to ground empiricism that doesn't fall into that trap, so why would I engage with your question?

Can you empirically prove that all valid evidence is empirical in nature.
 

Lighthearted Atheist

Well-known member
See my post #11.
Thank you. I guess I am confused by this from your post #11:

P3 - One possible way to accomplish P2 is to first observe reality, and then to think logically about those observations.
Question: How do you prove if your observation is correct without empirical evidence? For example, I observe the world around me and determine that the world is flat and the Sun circles the Earth. That is consistent with my observation. It is also completely wrong.

I know how to use empirical evidence to prove that the Earth is round and the Earth orbits the Sun. If we do not require empirical evidence then what would you use to validate my observation that the Earth is flat?

Thanks :)
 

Gus Bovona

Well-known member
Thank you. I guess I am confused by this from your post #11:


Question: How do you prove if your observation is correct without empirical evidence? For example, I observe the world around me and determine that the world is flat and the Sun circles the Earth. That is consistent with my observation. It is also completely wrong.
First of all, you're implicitly distinguish between an observation and empirical evidence, but they are basically the same thing, so this makes your question hard to deal with.

Maybe this helps: the conclusions (The sun goes around the earth) of the observations (I see a bright orb move across the sky every day) have to work with *all* observations. Once we had certain further observations (the length of a shadow in two different places at the same time in Egypt on the equinox, I think), we had to conclude that the earth revolved around the sun. Other observations may force us to change our conclusions. That's a mere commonplace in science.

I know how to use empirical evidence to prove that the Earth is round and the Earth orbits the Sun. If we do not require empirical evidence then what would you use to validate my observation that the Earth is flat?

Thanks :)
 
Top