Ah, hi Vagabond :)  The more the merrier (ughghg).

I do not decry logic in any way; it's true and necessary.  But empiricism has no more practical or tangible value than my own philosophy, in that it's practicality is measured only by itself, which would be true of any method of truth.  We landed on the moon, yes, but we know that through empiricism.  Yes, we have sense data.  But I could roll dice and pick a statement and come up with something just as likely as true as empiricism could manage.  Empericism is an assumption, with no assuredly measurable benefits, and to select is to do exactly what I've done; just picked something.  My magical thinking (as it were) is all there is.
 

Well, I think it's kind of a yes/no idea that the whole universe might not really exist and all your senses are a lie.  Not really any middle ground.  So yes, in the apparent universe that seems to be true. 

I'm not sure I understand the rest of your objection and I have to leave for work, sorry.  Either you can expand, or I'll try again later, but I might still require clarification.  (But my next reply might make it unnecessary to respond to this.)

Why Do Christians Cherypick The Bits of The Bible They Believe are Facts?

Didn't follow the whole exchange; no time (as detailed above) -- but WHAT?!

You've so far argued AFAIK that sensory data might not be true because the universe might be a lie; this is not amenable to any sort of measurable test for obvious reasons.  In fact, how can we test ANYTHING if our senses are totally unreliable?

 I'll answer this part first;  I'm not quite sure what you're getting at, but for you last sentence I'll say, yes, we can't test anything with our senses (that is, our interpretation of our sense data) unless we assume they're true.

For your other post (hopefully, without being redundant in light of your other post); What I mean to say is that empiricism is on equal footing as, say, flipping a coin as a method of truth, because both are equally unfounded as can be. 

@scifiboy

There are a lot of... uniformed Christians, I'll grant you that.

But then comparing empiricism to faith, at least empiricism has SOMETHING. Faith hasn't even showed us what can be a lie or what couldn't be. It's a figment of people's imagination.

But all of these concepts--"measurement," "true," "assumption," etc.... all of these, themselves, are constructed on sensory data and empiricism.

You say that there are no "assuredly measurable benefits" to empiricism (which, here, I mean relying on one's senses... not necessarily the formal school of thought).  But I say that there are not any "assuredly measurable benefits" outside of empiricism, and cannot be, because the very notion of "assure" or "measure" or even "benefit" relies on receiving data from the world and interpreting it.

I.e. sensation.

If you agree that sensation is axiomatic (and I believe you did in another post), then perhaps you'd agree that it is beyond proof; sensation, itself, is foundational to proof--it comes before the very concept of logic.  As babies, we take sensation for granted long before we ever learn what a syllogism is.

Empiricism is essentially based on the axiom that our senses are real. To say that it is therefore completely unfounded is the same as saying that all of mathematics is completely unfounded because its based on axioms such as x=x.

There is absolutely no reason to believe your interpretations of your own senses; as I said, coin flipping is about as likely to give truth as is empiricism, being that neither have absolutely nothing on which to back them up. 

Let me put it this way. If you are going the route of "we just know 1+1=2" so you can say "the same way i just know about god." It doesn't work. If I punch you or anyone else on earth in the face, everyone will feel pain. However more and more people aren't "feeling" god. So obviously one is real and the other isn't, following that logic.