The theories of electron motion are derived from observations and measurements resulting from repeatable experiments. Test are devised to see if these theories hold true. The tests can be performed by anyone anywhere and they would obtain the same results
Repeatable observation and experimentation is what defines empirical evidence! Look it up.
Never has a test been devise, nor an experiment performed, nary an observation made that demonstrates the existence of god. He exists solely out of faith. If it were not so faith would not be needed for belief in god
I’m not sure what you mean by that. empirical:
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience <empirical data>
2 : relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory
3 : capable of being verified or disproved by observation or experiment
Empirical evidence is only evidence when it is part of a theory…that is, it is evidence of something. In matters of deeper science, the evidence is not direct. Given the data, it is not obvious what something implies. We need a theory or system to explain what the data means.
We do not observe electrons. Electron theory is based on effects that we explain through our understanding of the atom that we explain through…etc, no one sees these things. You do not watch electrons move through a semiconductor and then use that data to form a theory of electricity through semiconductors. If you do do that then beat feet over to scientific american, Berkley, and any other institution which could use you over tunneling electron microscopes, particle accelerators, and regulat scientists.
As well, I can give you a test right now to prove whether or not the Christian god (for example) exists. Commit suicide. Anyone can confirm the result by killing themselves as well. Not a repeatable test, though. But you asked!
There are 6 billion odd bio-chemical machines on Earth capable of making such an observation. Even if you could build an equivalent machine in some Frankenstein’s laboratory, you’d still have no idea if the machine was functioning correctly – and you’d be left with the same subjective report given by a mystic, a monk, the Pope, or any other shaman or high poobah. Simply because an observation is subjective doesn’t mean it isn’t valid.
Don’t let Brian Bunnyhurt confuse you, DaddyMack. Faith in the traditions which hold it is possible to know God exists merely means trust. I have faith for example, that when I cash my paycheck it won’t bounce. Tht doesn’t mean my faith is an inherent requirement of the existence of my employer. I know Brian will call that a “false analogy” since he regards any analogy involving God as inherently false, but I trust that you can apply some wisdom here! I believe God exists, but I don’t have faith in him.
Well, yeah, you’re not neccesarily going to convince somebody he’s wrong. But, what I posited was an objectively true, factual standard of morality that exists whether it’s believed in or not, because it seems to me that what the OP is saying is, “Because people disagree about G-d, there can be no G-d, because if there was, he wouldn’t let people be wrong.” My potential answer to that is, “What if there’s a G-d, and he gives you the opportunity to be right, but lets you be wrong”
aynrandlover
Sight is not the only source of empirical evidence. I also mentioned measurements which would encompass the effects of a phenomenon on other things. We cannot see magnetism but its effects can be measured and reduced to mathematical formula. We cannot see electricity but it effects can also be reduced to mathematical formula and related to empirical evidence we have gathered about magnetism. Please don’t confuse me with some person from Missouri
I don’t know what your little experiment would attempt to prove or just how I would publish my findings in Scientific America. Yet if I’m not mistaken Houdini tried a similar experiment. He gave is wife a secret word and after his death she was to visit numerous mediums to see if they could communicate the secret word. Needless to say none ever did.
jmullaney
Just what are we to observe? The 6 billion odd bio-chemical machines I assume are humans.
Surely you are not equating faith in your paycheck not bouncing with faith in God? You should not treat you faith so flimsily. There is empirical evidence to support you BELIEF in you check not bouncing. There are people who believe in UFO’s their belief is not based on faith, they believe there is sufficient empirical evidence to support their belief. Likewise those who do not believe in UFO’ do not disbelieve because of lack of faith but because they believe there is not sufficient empirical evidence to support it.
Belief in God prevails even in the face of a total lack of evidence, even if it is irrational to believe such. If you faith in God is reduced to faith in everyday things such as you auto brakes working or my wife will pick me up after work. You would end up worshiping a gaggle of gods. Such faith would most definitely imply a false religion.
If you don’t accept the koinos kosmos you’ve got bigger problems than God to deal with.
No, I’m using that as an analogy.
No there isn’t. There is no way for me to know until it clears. Once it clears, there is no reason for me to have faith in it not bouncing since it has already cleared. Once I have the evidence, there’s no reason for me to believe anymore. But I go on to start having faith in the next one not bouncing. Faith in the Christian God is the same sort of continuity.
Good for them.
What total lack of evidence? If Jehovah is true his promises, isn’t that evidence?
Well, I suppose it is important to recognize a bit of the divine in others, whether it is your wife or your automechanic. I don’t know if you want to call that believing in 'a gaggle of gods" or not.
What is this false dichotomy you speak of? For example: I think that it would be a false dilemma to suggest either that one dogma (defintion of God) is correct and everyone else is wrong. Also, we must remember that if there is NO God, then ALL faith is false. We are discussing here and now that if there is in fact an UNKNOWN WILL OF GOD, then is all faith false anyway? Reference to false distractions:
Anyway, skipping about a page of explanation here, I assume that faith and knowledge are not merely abstractions here. We can measure knowledge about God, and there is none. We also make assumptions. Faith also makes assumptions. The knowledge you and Spiritus refer to (faith-epistemology) about God is not really knowledge in my book. It is a mindset, it is an attitude, it is this or that, but not knowledge. I would even call it pseudo-knowledge, hence faith-dogma. I made a crude assumption that faith and dogma are related, as per pseudo-reasoning (to replace real reasoning), but you claim this dogma is now knowledge. If faith and knowledge are now the same to anyone, then this discussion is entirely over. It’s too late. The mindset is now reality.
Not a repeatable test, though. 
But you asked!
But, what I posited was an objectively true, factual standard of morality that exists whether it’s believed in or not, because it seems to me that what the OP is saying is, “Because people disagree about G-d, there can be no G-d, because if there was, he wouldn’t let people be wrong.” My potential answer to that is, “What if there’s a G-d, and he gives you the opportunity to be right, but lets you be wrong”