A Serious Question For Theists

[fr0d0]

you don't seem to understand what empiricism really is if you think that empiricism and rationalism are independent of each other.

An empiricist needs examples. Empiricism and rationalism are opposites. I don't think they are independent.

---

But are those god claims separate from reality? Surely they must be grounded in something? To come up with an idea, there must be an anchor in reality. Something that the audience can relate to so that they can understand it.

Sure: people from long ago didn't have the answers to questions, and so they posited the existence of even bigger, more powerful people that made the things they didn't know about happen. That's why gods always have similar traits to the people that invented them, regardless of whether or not they logically would.

There's nothing strictly wrong with imagining like that, but as I said above, you need to have some way of testing those claims, and if those tests come out negative, then you should relinquish your grip on the claim. And you should always keep in mind that, before the tests come back positive, the real answer to the question you're trying to resolve is "I don't know."

I disagree with your assessment that scientism doesn't apply to you. I think it's a perfect fit, and fits well everything you say. I've never seen you take a rationalist position.

I have a healthy respect for empirical evidence, and think that a lot of the things that we can detect in our world can be empirically verified, but I'm aware of the limitations of it with regards to how we operate.

But I've never once asked strictly for empirical evidence for a claim, and you don't get to strawman me by pretending I have; I've only ever asked for evidence, period. Because if there's no effect of a thing in reality, something you can point to as the origin point of your observation, then you have no reason for considering that thing to begin with.

1. The old "primitive people were ignorant" red herring where you know very well that those people were not making scientific observations in the bible.

2. Spoken like a true empiricist. You insist on that point of fact, where biblical Christianity, for one, is based upon the premise of an unknowable fact.

Until you can get over that self imposed restriction, you're stuck with your illogical/ contradictory position.

Just to let you know esq, this is the end of my engaging with your sophistry in this thread.