(November 13, 2011 at 9:30 am)fr0d0 Wrote: So please tell me how you can have empirical evidence of a non empirical subject.
The demand for evidence must be appropriate for the claim in question; i.e., empirical evidence for empirical claims, non-empirical evidence for non-empirical claims.
We cannot know, using empirical evidence, that there is a God.
The problem is, you're attributing god as non empirical. Based on what? There is no reason not to believe that if there is a god that he could be empiricaly measured. How do we know that the god subject is a non empirical subject? Because you and others say so? Not good enough.
It always comes back to nothing more than "belief". You either do or you don't. Belief is no good for establishing truth.
We cannot know using empirical evidence that there is a god because there isn't one. That would be the simplest explanation - Occam's Razor.
Surely an all knowing, all great god would know this and ensure that he could be empirically measured, just to shut non believers up.
If he's as important as people reckon, then we need to know not believe in god. Unless he's playing games to see who believes based on no evidence and who doesn't, which makes him strange to say the least.
