Which has what to do with my question?
Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes from sensory experience. What experience would lead you to conclude that your body was designed by a god?
Have you seen me? 
Anybody that has a prosthetic would tell you that his real hand felt much better and was much more responsive to his needs. If the individual was religious, he might conclude that the original hand was an example of God’s genius.
And if the individual was not religious? It’s tautology again.
The premise was “Empiricism asserts that knowledge comes from sensory experience”. Adding the premise “if the individual was religious” is a contradiction of the original premise. Again, disconnect in logic.
In a nutshell, how does that answer the question?
If I may paraphrase Terry Francona:
I’ve seen Czarcasm in the shower. He isn’t the Greek God of anything.
You did miss post 193 uh? 
Yeah, you are referring here about a metaphorical one, but even in a literal vacuum there is empirical evidence to show how far away form “nothing” even that is. The point here is that there is more than just a “feeling” but evidence that shows why we do not need to depend on an intelligent designer to get the universe.
Prosthetics don’t feel. We may get there at some point, but we haven’t yet. Do you know people with prosthetic, or is this another example of you explaining what you assume other people think? (I doubt anyone would choose a prosthetic over their original limb, but over a limb that has already been damaged? Different story.)
I am pretty sure Human Action is asking about your personal experience. Meaning you specifically, not a made up or abstract example of what someone else might think.
I’m really trying to grasp your points, here, pchaos.
You introduced the idea of empirical (that is, sensory experience) evidence, and how it can be given due or undue weight to support one or another theory. I think you are correct that this occurs.
This leads me to ask: what empirical evidence leads you to posit that God designed the human body?
The fact that a prosthetic hand is less functional than an original, biological one cannot be it; that would be the case whether the human hand evolved or was designed. We can all agree that a biological hand works best at present levels of technology, but not that the hand was designed by God. Let’s focus on that aspect, if you would.
You are correct.
ETA: I’m asking because “empirical evidence” is very seldom given as a rationale for religious belief, spiritual feelings or the sort of abstract reasoning you engaged in in the OP are much more common. Unless you’ve witnessed a miracle or something like that, I am highly curious what empirical evidence you’re relying on.
So anyone who, through no fault of their own, develops a debilitating and painful ailment (or perhaps is born with some congenital problem) in some body part should conclude this is an example of what?
[QUOTE=Human Action]
The fact that a prosthetic hand is less functional than an original, biological one cannot be it; that would be the case whether the human hand evolved or was designed. We can all agree that a biological hand works best at present levels of technology, but not that the hand was designed by God. Let’s focus on that aspect, if you would.
[/QUOTE]
As a follow up to this, does it imply that if we could make a prosthetic hand as good as the original that we have become God? I mean, the technology is rather rapidly converging on such limbs being as functional (I think the current state of the art has something like 20 independent ranges of motion, instead of the IIRC 23 that a real hand has, and they can even put sensation and force feedback into the system today), so it’s only a matter of time. For that matter, the ability to regrow a limb isn’t beyond the realm of possibility in the not so distant future…something that God oddly forgot about, though He put that ability into other animals. 
I think that trying to look at human (or animal in general) anatomy and conclude that it MUST be by design ignores how poorly it all works from a design standpoint. Basically, if that was the best God could do working from scratch then He is a terrible engineer…he’d be fired almost instantly in any serious engineering firm because of all the mistakes and useless parts that were incorporated into each living organism. The only way something like a human or a fish makes sense is if it evolved into it’s current configuration, and has a ton of vestigial features and dead end systems still in it.
The sad thing is this argument that all organisms must have been created maybe made some sense a few hundred years ago, but today we can actually look at the DNA and the building blocks of organisms and see all of the crap that has been turned off (such as a tail in a human being for instance) or not expressed. At the DNA level it’s pretty clear that evolution is a fact, and how they all relate to each other in the tree of life. It’s only (willful) ignorance that allows people to continue to believe this intelligent creationism stuff wrt anatomy.
That’s exactly why experiments don’t count unless they are reproducible. Pons and Fleishman wanted cold fusion, and so didn’t try to disprove their results enough. When people tried to reproduce their work, they soon found where they went wrong.
All religious experience we have any record of is purely personal and internal. Just like the UFO abductions popular a while back. If you say you talked to god, I want something back a little easier to confirm than “love one another.” I’d like a bit more objective evidence than Jesus’ face on a slice of toast.
Nope; order is an objective qualification, and comes out of information theory.
If you have twenty sand dunes, all lined up north-south, all twenty meters apart, all about 200 meters in length, all about 5 meters in height, that’s order. The specific definition of order, here, is that I have a better than expected chance of predicting what the next sand dune will look like. (I’d guess it’s oriented north/south, about five meters high, etc.) The repeating pattern permits a (better than expected) chance at predicting a future observation.
In kind of the same way, the English language is “ordered” in that the frequency of the letters is observable. The letter “e” is most common, etc. I can make accurate predictions about text I haven’t even read yet, on this basis. Things that are purely random are not predictable.
The interesting thing is that this kind of order can arise from truly random processes. As Harold Morowitz said (I don’t know if he said it first, but he said it often!) “The flow of energy through a system tends to organize that system.”
This appears, at first naive glance, to be a violation of the laws of thermodynamics: information is coming from “nowhere.” But the fact is that the information is coming from the flow of energy. The orderly ranks of the waves striking the seashore arise from purely random influences…but they are, in fact, orderly. Obviously so: occurring at regular intervals, of regular size and shape. You can turn your back, and accurately predict information about the next wave to break.
Heh… I know one who is! It’s vaguely amusing, and also a bit sad. He’s a Catholic who has lost his faith, and is now furious at God…for not existing!
It’s wrong on so many different logical levels as to be staggering… But… The world is so full of so many different viewpoints, it is, after all, possible to find some (rather few!) atheists who are angry at God!
(Hey, better than Birthers or Truthers or Apollo-Hoax believers!)
That’s a problem when it comes to debates about God. For some of the most important ideas and values, the experiment isn’t reproducible.
I had a philosophy professor who taught that once we became adults, our basic beliefs don’t change.
For instance, Thomas Edison kept on experimenting with different filament until he discovered incandescent light.
For religious people, if they believe that the Second Coming would be 1000 A.D. and nothing happened…it is very likely they would re-examine the bible and come up with a new date.
Earlier, a poster mentioned tautology (or circular logic), it becomes a problem as we get older.
How is this an example of your point?
It’s wrong in several ways.
How is Edison experimenting with filaments a demonstration that our basic beliefs don’t change?
Further, Edison didn’t even discover incandescent light. The principle of incandescence has been known since antiquity (e.g. go to a blacksmith and watch metal heated until it glows). Edison’s experiment was to find an appropriate filament for an incandescent electric light bulb.
Further, he wasn’t even the only one or even the first to build an incandescent light bulb. His light bulb happened to be the best economically, but it certainly wasn’t the only one around.
Edison had no “beliefs” that needed to be questioned or set. He was “simply” (simple it wasn’t, actually) engineering a better product. Set beliefs don’t even come into the picture.
But he did believe that he could make a better product by experimenting.
A religious person would have stopped experimenting and started praying or started to re-read the bible for the solution.
You’ve said yours did. Doesn’t that kind of invalidate the comment? I don’t understand why you brought it up here.
Overlooking the fact that what your said about Edison was totally wrong, I think he did his work on the lightbulb when he was in his early 30s. So he was already an adult, and this doesn’t illustrate anything about his beliefs changing or not changing. Maybe you should stick with simple questions and answers and stop trying to find examples. It’s not working for you.
I agree with my professor, basic beliefs don’t change, they simply evolve. Once you recognize this type of circular logic (tautology), you can either give up by saying that you can’t teach an old dog new tricks.
Or you can try and step back and act more like a jury (observer) and see if you can make sense of the evidence that was presented.
But the evidence of god’s interaction with us would be - or rather, should be there to be found.
The Big Bang is not reproducible - but what we should expect to see if the Big Bang happened is predictable, and finding it strengthens the theory.
For instance, the Bible says that after the crucifixion there were earthquakes and dead saints ambled around. Someone should have noticed - that no one did is good evidence that this never happened.
Mine did. I gave up conservatism in the light of reality.
Way to miss the point. Edison did not have a preconceived belief about which material would work, just some data about the kind he wanted and an experimental protocol to test them. Which he did until one passed the test. Remember, he wasn’t going for just material that would create light, but material which would last long enough to be practical. The religious analogy would be having a set of criteria for a good religion, and visiting churches and temples until you found a match. I kind of have that, and found that none meet my criteria, in the slightest.
You don’t have to go back that far. Remember that clown in Oakland who was predicting the end this spring? Then a few months later? When that happens, it is time to stop worrying about if you did your sums right and start worrying about if the Bible is reliable. And it is clear it isn’t.