I responded by pointing out an article from this week on the RC church truth claim tests.
No, you showed an example of the church dressing up some of its activities to try to look like real testing. When the question they claim to be trying to answer is "was this event a case of X", and X is itself something somebody made up with no basis in reality, the answer will also have no basis in reality. That's not even
trying to find out anything about reality. It's just pretending.
I responded with examples thereof.
No, you responded with a mix of some scientific things pertaining to hard-to-detect dimensions or aspects of this universe and other scientific things even more mundane than that. But what these scientific ideas have in common is that they're based on observed facts. String theory, for example, not only has nothing to do with outside universes as you claimed, but originated as an inference from relativity and quantum mechanics, both of which have more observed facts behind them than I could probably even list in one sitting. When they started developing the implications of string theory, they found out that it implied more dimensions than were previously imagined, but that didn't come from nothing; it came from applying logic to the
facts we know about relativity and quantum mechanics.
Compare that to the church supposedly trying to figure out whether some particular reported event was a true miracle or apparition or whatever. It requires having some idea of what an example of the "true" thing would be like, and where did that come from? Nothing. If it wasn't just made up, but worked out by inference or induction or deduction or such, then it only comes from prior theological concepts, claims about God's behavior and words, which were themselves made up.
We currently have in physics at the big and smallest scale a whole load of work that goes beyond the potential for direct observation
...By applying logic to facts which were established by observation of the real world.
It work sin the same manner as classical systematic theology.
No, because in theology, the starting point from which all inferences, inductions, deductions, and so on are derived is ultimately always stuff somebody just made up from nothing. No matter how many more steps of logical inference you take, the fact that it still traces back to, and is entirely based on, people just making stuff up (including if the original people who made it up have all been dead for millennia), never goes away.
So I cited non-empirical science.
No, you did not. You tried an equivalency that just doesn't work. No matter how many times you repeat a claim that science can be based on religion-like imagination instead of real-world facts and still be science, it won't become true. Nor will a claim that religion has any foundation under it all other than imagination, or that the imagined stuff it's based on is somehow equivalent to real-world observation. Observation and imagination are just two completely separate things, and the fact that inductions and deductions can be applied to both doesn't change that.
historically rationalism and empiricism were rival approaches.
And the fact that people who cling to evidence-free nonsense such as religion are now trying to disguise their religions as if they were somehow empirical or somehow equivalent to it, and shout "hey look, we can be sciencey too!", demonstrates which one has turned out to be superior.
Sorry I'm naturally playful, and joke around, but I try to be sensible too!
