Sorry - I did not know. We are talking about empirical evidence.
Ah.... evideNce...
That's a word I'm acquainted with.
I just never saw EvideCe before.
Empirical evidence is evidence you can evaluate with the five senses - you can touch it or observe it or weigh it. It can be seen and tested by anyone in the world.
I'd agree with this.
Examples would be a moon rock, a glass of water, or a piece of Manna that God dropped from the sky over Africa to feed the hungry.
Ironically, nowhere in the bible does it say YHVH dropped manna from the sky in Africa.
What would today be the regions of Saudi Arabia, Jordan... yes. But Africa.... no.
You have never given us anything we can see and test. So you have no empirical evidence.
That's not true. I have repeatedly given you the empirical evidence that YHVH is real.
The nation of Israel, and the Jewish people.
You however keep saying that they are not evidence of YHVH's existence.
You have tons of subjective, unverifiable evidenced - so does the Hindu and the Astrologer. But that is not compelling.
And yet I see you provide nothing which would give us reason to believe that is true.
I'd say that the problem here is that you don't actually know what empirical evidence is.
A political body of people looks pretty empirical to me. I can travel to Israel. I can engage in the politics of the nation, handle the products they manufacture, foods they sell, talk with people who are Israeli, read books published by Israeli people, in the Israeli language. I can observe the bible in action in Israel.
I'd say that's better than a moon rock.
Furthermore I can talk to a Jewish person and corroborate they are in fact Jewish.
I can further handle the book, a collection of writings that are historically known as the bible.
I have a copy of the Dead Sea scrolls sitting on my book shelf at home right now, and have previously verified that what is written on its pages matches what was found in the Qumran caves in 1947, and dated to the first century.
I've further corroborated that what is written in the Dead Sea scrolls matches what is written in the bible I use.
Sounds like empirical evidence based on your definition.
You misuse the terms empirical, subjective, objective, and the construction of an experiment completely, utterly, objectively wrong. So I can take this with a grain of salt.
Sounds like you have a subjective opinion, but we're supposed to take that subjective opinion as factual, regardless, and are not allowed to question your opinions.
Sounds pretty subjective to me.
Ah. That's what I thought, but I've never seen anything like this before so I had to say as much.
Well, you've provided nothing which would corroborate that, so that seems subjective to me.
No! They do not 'get their own' evidence. They evaluate the empirical evidence from the original experiment. Then they evaluate it and evidence and see if they get the same answer. They do not introduce new evidence in a peer review.
I said that they can, if they decide that they don't believe that the author is correct in their own research.
Please... pay attention.
They get their own results sure. But the evidence they evaluate is the original, empirical evidence.
Yep.
Is The Bible your empirical evidence? Ah - OK.
Nope. The evidence is the basis from which I understand the biblical narrative.
You are right. The Bible is empirical - we can read it, test it, and evaluate it. I can get a Bible identical to yours and test it myself.
This is a proper, empirical experiment. Yay!
I read The Bible and evaluated your evidence for your claims of God. Sadly I got a different result - no god. So I cannot confirm your claim that you know God.
I read the Quran. I see nothing that shows me how to know Allah.
What am I supposed to do, get myself killed murdering other people in the name of Islam?
It's a sure fire way to end up dead.
Jesus said that we must DO what he says to know him.
He tells us,
If you love me, keep my commandments and my Father will love you and we will come and make our home with you.
Reading alone has never been enough.
It's doing what Jesus said that matters, and will result in their coming to live with you.
Don't worry though. You won't have to murder anyone. Jesus said that we're to love our enemies, to pray for those who treat us spitefully, and bless those who curse us.
So, the worst possible scenario is that you would be faced with the idea that you would be loving people who despise you.
While indeed unpleasant, and challenging, I'm curious why taking the time to learn to do what Jesus said is such a problem for you.
So we wait for more, or better, evidence. Something that people evaluate and all of them instantly find God. That would be a conclusive test of your theory.
The irony is that the moment after your death, the magnitude of evidence will be inescapable. It'll also be impossible to turn back to do anything about it. You'll find yourself eternally stuck where you are, and no amount of arguing will change your state.
For now so many people read The Bible and get a different result from you that this is all very much in the 'we do not know yet' catagory.
Reading isn't enough.
I have made this clear repeatedly, and yet you keep ignoring it.indeed! You actually whined about it earlier today.
It's an absolute necessity to be a doer of the word of God.
Failure to do so excludes you from knowing the truth.
This is exactly why Jesus told is-- if to continue in my teachings, you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.
"Go prove my beliefs" is about the worst arguement I have ever heard in a discussion or debate. I do not know whyt you think asking someone to go get the evidence you cannot provide for your own ideas is rational.
For someone who claims to be so intelligent, you sure do demonstrate a lot of density, and lack thereof.
I've stated this several different ways, and you keep tripping over yourself in restating my comments.
It's leaving me wondering if you just like acting ignorant.
It's not my beliefs you are testing.
It's the bible.
So, let's see if you can figure that out or will you keep confusing yourself.
Its not.
Who does this? The naïve? The credulous? The gullible? Accepting claims of supernatural knowledge at face value is madness.
Then don't. I have taken the time to learn so I can better understand.
My experiences however have found that the supernatural is irrefutable and inescapable.
It's a matter of sheer stupidity and ignorance that makes people believe they can ignore it.
Its another typo. I am glad, and confused, that you are having so much fun with typos.
Well, if I have to continue to assume what you mean, then this is going to take a very, very, very, very long time to get through your posts.
Is that what you want? Confusion and lack of clarity?
Experience is not empirical evidence.
You haven't actually read any peer reviewed articles, have you.
Ironic.
If you think scientific peer review is 'learning the experience of the author' then this is another term you do not understand. Perr review is the rigorous, controlled, deliberate duplication of the original experiment on the same empirical evidence to see if you get the same result.
Perr......
Is that somebody's name?
I'm acquainted with a guy who is a programmer named Per. Not familiar with Perr though.
Its not a hippie commune where we try to meld experiences in the meditation te3nt.
Where on earth did you come up with that idea?
I've never lived on a hippie commune.
Peer review is rooted in rigor and empiricism - not the experiences of the original scientist.
Something you have utterly failed to do in your descriptions below.
I conducted the same experiment and got a different result. So its back to the drawing board for you I am afraid. Keep trying until you have an experiment where everyone who does what you say finds God.
Really? The SAME, EXACT experiment?
Seems to me that you believe that is what you did. But as you are not detailing your experiment, I think that you want me to believe that is what you did.
This is exactly the problem with this lack of detail in writing up your lack of experience as a journal article.
