It was a question on the definition you posted. Has nothing to do with what I think. Answer a simple yes or no about the definition that you posted... "Empirical evidence (also empirical data, sense experience, empirical knowledge, or the a posteriori) is a source of knowledge acquired by means of observation or experimentation."
Can you provide any evidence that is reproducible that Jesus Christ preformed a miracle and that it was not Zeus or Odin?
Observation implies objective. So yes, that is the definition. To continue from the wikipedia page: In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community. Normally, this validation is achieved by the scientific method of hypothesis commitment, experimental design, peer review, adversarial review, reproduction of results, conference presentation and journal publication. This requires rigorous communication of hypothesis (usually expressed in mathematics), experimental constraints and controls (expressed necessarily in terms of standard experimental apparatus), and a common understanding of measurement.
Lets just assume that Denny would believe in the definitions that he posted. I mean, can we take him seriously, if he just threw out a definition to support his claim and not believe it? So let's just break down this definition shall we? 1.) posteriori: deriving knowledge from experience: reasoning from observed facts or events back to their causes. - Last time I checked, a personal testimony is deriving knowledge from experience. When you testify on events that you have experienced, you are observing the cause of events that happened ones your life. 2.) Sense of experience: This is pretty self explanatory. The feeling one has in their personal experience is the "sense of experience". 3.) Observation: 1.) paying attention - the attentive watching of somebody or something 2.) observing of developments in something - the careful watching and recording of something, e.g. a natural phenomenon, as it happens 3.) record of something seen or noted: the result or record of observing something such as a natural phenomenon and noting developments. - carefully read this definition. Accounts of personal testimony falls in the definition of observation. But the definition itself also explains natural phenomenon, as the joy one has when they talk about Christ. Their biological positive reaction with their testimony would give you a good indicator if they truly believe in their testimony. 4.) Experimentation: the act, process, practice, or an instance of making experiments. - One could easily suggest that giving a poll of one thousand Christians and their personal account with God is a form of experience. So according to Denny's definition, not only is "personal testimony" empirical, it can be respected with a intense experimentation of over 1 million people. The argument that there is no evidence that God exists is wrong. Denny is wrong. NEXT...
Absolutely! Since we use Denny's definition of "empirical evidence", we can now use the Bible as reference.
Actually, Denny, you're wrong. Scientific "rules" and "laws" are not proven. We believe many of them to be truth due to the amount of evidence. But the same can be said for the people who thought the earth was flat. Causation is impossible to prove. The only "laws" that have proof are the ones that man has defined, such as 2 + 2 = 4.
I'm wrong about what? I didn't say anything about rules and laws (the scientific terms). I'm quite confident that there is no empirical evidence for any god, but there is plenty of empirical evidence to support self replicating molecules.
SWEET! 1.) Hypothesis: a proposition, or set of propositions, set forth as an explanation for the occurrence of some specified group of phenomena, either asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. - My hypothesis is broken down like this... God exists. Method: Using a demographic of 1 million Christians, Hindus and Muslims from varying countries and cultures. Interview their personal accounts with how they feel God's presence. Summarize the common emotional response when asked the question. Reference their Bibles, Korans, Gita, the Ramayan, the mahabartha and input the similarities with each religion. I can go on, but I or even a respected professional in the field of science can create a scientific method to document the testimonies and have a peer review of the results.
No it isn't. Only the choice of what experiments to perform is subjective, but the science itself is objective.
Then you do not believe in your definition of "empirical evidence". Do you even believe in what you write or are you some robot that throws definitions without conviction?
You are in denial Denny. I broke down your definition. My point is valid, you are choosing to ignore it because you don't want to lose
You're wrong. The use of the output, regardless of the chosen experiment, is subjective. You're using the output of the experiments when you assume something to be true, even though all of the data has confidence intervals associated with it.
You are if you don't have any peer review. That peers will replicate the experiment and see the same results over and over makes it objective. It's also objective to say the results aren't conclusive.
