Debate: God Exists

[RoadRunner79]

Yes, I agree that an arguement or scientific model is only as good as it'a foundation. That does nothing to support the claim, that only emperical evidence is established as said flundation.

Can you give an example of non-empirical evidence that has been established as a foundation for a conclusion that is generally accepted as well-supported? How do you evaluate non-empirical evidence without appealing to empirical methods?

For example, my personal observations of a unknown animal are empirical, but to be established as a foundation for a conclusion, more is needed: other people observing the same creature and taking pictures of it helps, but without a specimen to study and confirm that it is, in fact, a heretofore un-catalogued species, it's not going to be generally accepted as well-supported. The evidence that has been gathered is not conclusive if it doesn't include a specimen or equivalent evidence (maybe if I videoed it close up with someone else videoing me videoing it, and we also got a DNA sample).

For an example, you seem to want to establish a foundation for a conclusion here, and haven't offered any empirical evidence for said conclusion (really no arguments either unless I missed something).    Jehanne recently posted in the William Lane Craig, stating that a singularity contains actual infinities (Perhaps I am making an assumption, but I don't believe this was from any direct observation).  

See here

---

I don't think it matters.

It's obvious to me that WLC is as versed in philosophy as many of the people he debates with.  He's not a slouch or an intellectual weakling.

I would hope that you take the time to read the RationalWiki article.  Craig is just woefully ignorant and he appears that he wants to remain that way, no doubt to continue the stream of income that he is receiving from his "ministry".  Let's take just one example of Craig's foolishness.  Craig claims that "actual infinities" are an absurdity in Nature, and yet, he will cite singularity theorems to bolster his first cause argument, not telling his ignorant evangelical audiences that a singularity, in physics, is an actual infinite, where the equations go to an infinite space-time curvature.

Craig can't have it both ways; either actual infinities exist, or the singularity theorems/results are telling physicists something (that, by the way, they already know!), namely, that General Relativity, as a theory, is incomplete at extreme energies and/or distances.

Maybe Alex can fill us in with more details?!

---

Now a certain blogger observed this argument for actual infinities mostly comes from Atheist YouTuber experts (which he charitably described as "vibrant to say the least). And as I mentioned before, evidence of absence, is a logical claim.  While it does require some observation, it's foundation is logic.  As to how to handle non-emperical evidence.  I would say that according to the respective category.  For the subject in question, that would be the rules of logic. 

As to your last paragraph I don't see how that is on topic, I'm not nearly so strict.  I think that the evidence only needs to be sufficient, and would normally look for some type of corroborating evidence.