(October 4, 2021 at 5:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:(October 4, 2021 at 11:44 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: 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.
Inductive arguments are based on empirical evidence, exactly as you show in your Joan of Arc example, which IS a fine argument, based on empirical evidence (don't look now, but history is an evidence-based account of the past). 'Look, a pretty fish, therefore God' is also an inductive argument based on emprical evidence (pretty fish). There's no requirement that the evidence be testable in a lab, only that the evidence actually support the conclusion you're arguing for.
I'm not anti-Christian. I'm anti-stupid.