Reply #109: Another non-answer

[skepticscott]

There are many stories in the gospels, and nowhere do you quote any of the authors claiming that they are true, or cite any evidence other than the fact that they wrote them down, as proof of what they thought. Unless you are implying that the mere fact that a story is included in a gospel means that the author thought it was true, you'll have to do better than that. Did you never consider the (well accepted) fact that the reason that some stories are repeated in more than one gospel is simply because the authors copied them from each other, or from some other source, not because all of the authors were able to independently verify their factual basis?

Still waiting for an answer to my question of where in the process I described a neutrino is seen, heard, smelled, tasted or felt. Seems now that you're backpedaling to characterize empiricism as including anything that can be converted into anything that can be detected in any way whatsoever, not matter how indirectly, by the senses.

But even if you'd been honest and accurate from the beginning in that part of your description of empiricism, that still leaves unanswered (ducked again by you) my other, and more important point, that saying that until we can detect something empirically, acceptance of its objective existence should be withheld (the position of any rational thinker) is very different from your bogus characterization of empiricism meaning that if we can't sense something then we must conclude that it doesn't and cannot possibly exist.

And a lot of scientists would be surprised to learn that empirical inquiry never involves intuition (which is nothing magical or mystical, but is based on acquired knowledge, or the perception of it).