(August 11, 2016 at 10:14 am)LadyForCamus Wrote:(August 11, 2016 at 9:58 am)SteveII Wrote: em·pir·i·cal
əmˈpirik(ə)l/
adjective
based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.
This discussion is not scientific. You can't put a persons brain under a microscope and examine experiences and why they do or say things. So, 'scientific' standards of proof do not apply.
Are you willing to throw out human intuition as a source of knowledge? It seems so. How do you justify that?
News flash, Steve: you don't get to throw around phrases like "proof", "evidence", and "cause and effect", and then turn around and declare this isn't a scientific discussion. You can't have your cake, and eat it too. Sorry. Thanks for playing though.
Human intuition? Do I think it is relevant? Yes. Do I think it's important? Sure, up to a point. Does it, by itself, qualify as indisputable "proof" of ANYTHING without corroborating scientific evidence? Of course not.
Proof, evidence and cause and effect are definitely not scientific terms. While they are used by science, they are also used in a number of different fields: philosophy (reason, logic, philosophy of mind, etc.), social sciences, mathematics, as well as intuitively used a thousands times every day by people (if I do x then my wife will do y).
Why must I have 'corroborating scientific evidence'? How is examining and coming to conclusions about anything that has to do with the mind, emotions, human experiences, love, suffering, self-sacrifice, hope, etc. etc. have anything to do with being corroborated by scientific evidence? While I do not believe this to be the case, it could be that God only reveals himself to us as one mind to another. How would you go about corroborating that?
