Atheism and the existence of peanut butter

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yet you keep trying to supply empirical evidence to support the God Hypothesis. Why do you do that?

I am using observations in the world as premises in inductive arguments. Think really hard about the words 'premise' and 'inductive'.

To empirically test X isn't possible if X isn't some repeatable or reproducible phenomenon. But it's alway possible to give inductive arguments supporting the existence of X, and use empirical evidence in the premises.

Here is an example: Joan of Arc exist(ed). But there is no empirical test that we can perform in a laboratory leading us to her existence. However, an inductive argument along the lines of: (available historical accounts of various events in France's history and many elements of Joan of Arc's biography are better explained if she existed than not) would clearly be a fine argument.

Well, we have three surviving letters of Joan’s, so that’s a pretty convincing empirical test.

But let’s say we didn’t. Accounts of French history of that period are also empirical evidence. And there’s no reason that empirical evidence can’t be used in an inductive argument.

Boru