- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,991
- Reaction score
- 7,365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
Can you empirically prove that only those things are true which are empirically provable?
That is not what I said nor is it even where I was going. A lack of evidence of something is not proof that it does not exist. Radiation has been around since the dawn of time and yet it is only relatively recently that we've been able to detect and measure it as well as differentiate between different types. There is currently no way to prove God exist and Goddess does not. Nor the other way around. For all we know, both are "up there" watching over us. We all have different beliefs as to what is and isn't and even have personal experience as our own evidence towards the existence of what we believe in.
For example, Moses and the burning bush. There was not a single soul (no puns intended) around to verify Moses' account of what happened at that bush. It happened (I'm going with my belief that the event happen even if it is possible that details have been muddled by time and translation), Moses experienced it and he knows it happened, but there is no way to prove it. Lack of proof does not discredit existence. Having empirical evidence, particularly repeatable evidence, simply confirms existence and/or furthers understanding and comprehension.