Fanman wrote: ↑
January 22nd, 2018, 11:52 am
I am surprised you are not aware of this principle. It is a basic principle of Science that empirical evidence and proof is necessary for Scientific Knowledge.
I don't think that what you stated “The principle is whatever has inherent empirical elements is empirically possible
Translates to “In science, empirical evidence is required for a hypothesis to gain acceptance in the scientific community
The former is a statement of your belief/justification for believing that unicorns and tea pots that orbit in space possibly exist. The latter statement (from your excerpt) is a description of the scientific method. There is no correlation between the two statements (IMO).
The principle itself is self-explanatory in a logical sense, i.e.
- 'Whatever has inherent empirical elements is empirically possible'
'Whatever do not have inherent empirical elements is empirically impossible'
I was trying to search for a reference to justify the above within Science which is basically empirical supported logic, mathematics and empirical evidence.
In the above example I gave,
Empirical evidence is required for the hypothesis, the starting point of Science as an empirical possibility and it must followed through empirically to its scientific conclusion.
Applying the principle, if the hypothesis is not empirically based, then it is an empirical impossibility.
If you think otherwise, show me how can a hypothesis that is based on the non-empirical [in this case the supernatural'] follow through to an empirical conclusion?
Never? Your personal subjective claim is not credible at all.
That's interesting. BTW, I wasn't making a claim that all
theists believe that God is not empirical. What I stated was my experience of theists. Why do you think my experience is not credible? Isn't it within the context of our discussion?
I thought this is very obvious. ALL personal assertions are at worst opinions or at best, beliefs [not knowledge] with various degrees personal confidence levels.
Your personal assertions will only have credibility if they are supported by sufficient justifications to be justified true beliefs.
In this case you have not given any sufficient justifications of any reasonable confidence level for me to accept.
If you define a perfect God is "that than which nothing greater can be exist/thought" I have no issue with that.
However in the absence of any qualification, I will use the term for God as 'an absolutely perfect God' to avoid any question of relative perfection which exists in the empirical world.
If that is the case, why are you making a distinction between a perfect God and an “absolutely perfect" God? If it is acceptable that a definition of a perfect God is “ "that than which nothing greater can be thought", why are you reasoning as though there is an epistemic difference?
Note there are no immutable God's Laws dictating rules on the creation of definitions and meanings. There are many others who use the term 'absolute perfection' in relation to God and I have explained my basis for the term.
Reason?? I have already given the reason above, i.e.
"to avoid any question of relative perfection which exists in the empirical world."
As I had stated the term 'perfect' is too loose and for God exclusively we need to specify the specific nature of 'perfection' attributable to God.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.