hamilrob wrote:I have had several EEGs that show I have a brain.
OK, but if you hadn't would you still conclude you had a brain?
hamilrob wrote:I have thoughts, and I have imagination.
A soul, perhaps? Inference to just assume it must be a brain.
hamilrob wrote:I am a pianist.
Player pianos don't need brains. The brain isn't the only logically possible cause of this effect. Perhaps a soul would work as well.
hamilrob wrote:I am human.
Inference. Some people don't have legs, why do you have to have a brain?
hamilrob wrote:Are you confusing inference with empirical reality? Am I not making myself clear? Can you give God my Phone number and have Him/Her/It call me? Can you take a picture of him/her/it or an X-Ray?
Can I give Osama Bin Laden your phone number and have him call you? I guess he doesn't exist.
Actually, I would say that maybe God doesn't want to perform the miracle of calling you on the phone. He could if He wanted to. However, not being God I can't fully explain His reasons.
What about the solution to a calculus problem? Math is like 99% inference; does that make it invalid? I can't x-ray just any problem involving imaginary numbers for instance.
Oh, and I can't photograph the body of some historical person who has been creamated. I could photograph the ashes, but that would be poor proof. I guess everyone who was cremated before the camera was invented just never existed. And don't try paintings. Ever heard of Dali? Paintings don't prove anything, aside from inference.
What exactly, apart from inference, imagination, and speculation, makes you conclude that there is something wrong with a conclusion from inference, imagination, and speculation?
hamilrob wrote:Nothing's wrong with that kind of conclusion until you try to force it on others and irrationally claim it to be true as you did with your closing statement. nothing's wrong with it until you use it to force social action through warfare.
Empirical evidence, please.
Without that you can't force it on me.
And "inference" is the odd ball out. Inference is perfectly reasonable, as valid as empirical evidence.
I would consider any conclusion for which a truth claim is "irrational" to have something seriously wrong with it.
hamilrob wrote:You have to be open to change and your closing statement indicates you are rigid.
No, I am open to some changes as the evidence leads. However, I have found plenty of other evidence that divine inspiration exists. Fulfilled prophesy, for example. I have changed views before, though. I used to believe in a young earth and now I believe in an old earth, for example.
hamilrob wrote:Fortunately, science provides a venue for change.
Here it seems that you hold a philosophy called "scientism". Scientism holds that science is superior to all other intellectual disciplines. However, even science itself rests on philosophy, and thus science cannot be superior to philosophy! Scientism doesn't make any sense to me.
hamilrob wrote:And Thank God for that, huh?
Actually, yeah! Although as pointed out elsewhere, evidence for my statements does exist. It's not just subjective belief.