(August 20, 2021 at 1:34 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Until you open your mind to types of evidence other than empirical observation, there is nothing to discuss further relatively to the God question. We all agree, theists and atheists alike, that there is no direct empirical evidence of any supernatural being whatsoever, namely because the distinction natural/supernatural is a meaningless one that somewhat begs the atheist position.
Empirical data can only serve as a premise in a posteriori arguments for God's existence -which you are, sadly, allergic to.
OK, so I'm open to other "types" of evidence. What you got? Describe your "evidence". Explain to me how you came to possess it. Or at least explain your theory.
Ah, you agree there is no empirical evidence for supernatural beings. Great, we've established some common ground; that's huge! But wait, the distinction between natural and supernatural is not meaningless, as you say. It is quite meaningful. Natural refers to something that we can, by definition, observe or measure in some way. The term "supernatural" is a bit elusive but it certainly means something that is beyond that which is natural, right? So that implies that humans would likely not have the ability to observe or measure something supernatural.
No one here is allergic to posteriori arguments. Science depends on it. Empirical data is not always a premise for such an argument, it is the grounds on which such an argument is judged. Einstein used no empirical data to develop his theory of special relativity. But once technology was developed to test his theory, it was done. So, to your point, any sort of idea can be imagined and considered whether you have data or not. But it cannot be evaluated as truthful without some kind of measurement or observation.
Why is it so?
~Julius Sumner Miller
~Julius Sumner Miller