I serve an amazing God

[zoogs]

I'm interested in hearing more about that, Landlord. From what you've described, these all appear to be thought exercises and not actual evidence. Or "there exists [order/beauty/etc], therefore _____." I still feel like there is good reason that these arguments do not stand on the same level of criteria used for scientific knowledge, and while they may be philosophically significant, they still cannot truly be described as actual evidence.

 

Of course it does not mean they can't be reasons for choosing to believe in something. It is just a more subjective area, no?

[husker_99]

If the universe isn't infinite then what happens when you reach the outter most point.

 

They don't know if the universe is infinite or finite. Sadly i think that too much sci-fi is creeping into actual science and then forming their conclusions on that.

[Landlord]

I'm interested in hearing more about that, Landlord. From what you've described, these all appear to be thought exercises and not actual evidence. Or "there exists [order/beauty/etc], therefore _____." I still feel like there is good reason that these arguments do not stand on the same level of criteria used for scientific knowledge, and while they may be philosophically significant, they still cannot truly be described as actual evidence.

 

Of course it does not mean they can't be reasons for choosing to believe in something. It is just a more subjective area, no?

 

 

I guess I should have made myself more clear. These are all philosophical arguments, but philosophical evidence is still evidence. Scientific evidence can't generally, unless by inference, speak towards the existence of a creator, as I tried outlining a few points ago, simply because that is not science's job and science doesn't ask the questions to arrive at the answer we are looking for here.

 

If you are wanting to hear more about any of the examples I gave as philosophical evidence I can dive deeper into them but I'm no philosopher nor scientist.

[Enhance]

Philosophical evidence seems like an oxymoron.

[bhamHusker]

The word evidence should seek assistance at a rape crisis center after this thread.

[Landlord]

Philosophical evidence seems like an oxymoron.

 

 

So you're going to try and use logic to deny the credibility of logic?

 

Science, history, medicine... everything empirical presupposes philosophy and relies on philosophical predispositions in order to work properly. A scientist can't form a hypothesis without presupposing the logic behind it. A mathmetician cannot solve algebraic equations without assuming that the numbers correspond to reality. Even further, a doctor, archaeologist, or anyone else can't even trust their observations and make judgments without assuming their own rational capabilities.

 

Philosophy is ingrained and needed as evidence in so many areas of life. If I told you that I have a square circle in my glovebox and ask if you want to come see it, you don't need to walk to my car and open up the glovebox (empirical evidence) in order to know that I am lying, since the concept of a square circle is contradictory and incoherent.

[bennychico11]

Philosophy is ingrained and needed as evidence in so many areas of life. If I told you that I have a square circle in my glovebox and ask if you want to come see it, you don't need to walk to my car and open up the glovebox (empirical evidence) in order to know that I am lying, since the concept of a square circle is contradictory and incoherent.

 

And philosophy also gives us such gems as "can your god create a square circle?"

[Enhance]

Philosophical evidence seems like an oxymoron.

 

 

So you're going to try and use logic to deny the credibility of logic?

 

Science, history, medicine... everything empirical presupposes philosophy and relies on philosophical predispositions in order to work properly. A scientist can't form a hypothesis without presupposing the logic behind it. A mathmetician cannot solve algebraic equations without assuming that the numbers correspond to reality. Even further, a doctor, archaeologist, or anyone else can't even trust their observations and make judgments without assuming their own rational capabilities.

 

Philosophy is ingrained and needed as evidence in so many areas of life. If I told you that I have a square circle in my glovebox and ask if you want to come see it, you don't need to walk to my car and open up the glovebox (empirical evidence) in order to know that I am lying, since the concept of a square circle is contradictory and incoherent.

You're absolutely right. Many people don't know this, but science was actually once considered "natural philosophy."

 

But, philosophy and science do differ more than you're attending to. Science is empirically-based hypothesis testing, and philosophy is reason-based logical analysis. It is ignorant, therefore, for someone with little to no scientific background to claim they have as valid an opinion as someone who has devoted their life to understanding the intricacies of a specific science - like biology, for example.

 

Now, I'm not saying you specifically are being ignorant nor that you have little to no scientific background. I'm merely saying that yes, the two are inter-dependent, but zoogies point is still pretty clear - a philosophical reasoning is not evidence, nor can it be put on the same playing field as scientific evidence.

 

Because, personally, the idea that a square circle doesn't exist seems as rational to me as the idea that the Christian God doesn't exist. They're both ludicrous, imho.

[Landlord]

Philosophical evidence seems like an oxymoron.

 

 

So you're going to try and use logic to deny the credibility of logic?

 

Science, history, medicine... everything empirical presupposes philosophy and relies on philosophical predispositions in order to work properly. A scientist can't form a hypothesis without presupposing the logic behind it. A mathmetician cannot solve algebraic equations without assuming that the numbers correspond to reality. Even further, a doctor, archaeologist, or anyone else can't even trust their observations and make judgments without assuming their own rational capabilities.

 

Philosophy is ingrained and needed as evidence in so many areas of life. If I told you that I have a square circle in my glovebox and ask if you want to come see it, you don't need to walk to my car and open up the glovebox (empirical evidence) in order to know that I am lying, since the concept of a square circle is contradictory and incoherent.

You're absolutely right. Many people don't know this, but science was actually once considered "natural philosophy."

 

But, philosophy and science do differ more than you're attending to. Science is empirically-based hypothesis testing, and philosophy is reason-based logical analysis. It is ignorant, therefore, for someone with little to no scientific background to claim they have as valid an opinion as someone who has devoted their life to understanding the intricacies of a specific science - like biology, for example.

 

Now, I'm not saying you specifically are being ignorant nor that you have little to no scientific background. I'm merely saying that yes, the two are inter-dependent, but zoogies point is still pretty clear - a philosophical reasoning is not evidence, nor can it be put on the same playing field as scientific evidence.

 

Because, personally, the idea that a square circle doesn't exist seems as rational to me as the idea that the Christian God doesn't exist. They're both ludicrous, imho.

 

I agree with the bolded statement, if the philosopher is claiming to have evidence beyond what philosophy is meant for. I would say the same is true of scientists that try to give evidence against a creator or evidence for a specific position on the meaning of life - the two do work together, but are generally meant for different things. I do also agree that in circumstances where a philosophical standpoint is in contradiction with empirical, physical evidence that the latter outweighs the former. Philosophical reasoning can only not be on the same playing field as scientific evidence if it is trying to play science's game, and vice versa.

 

As a separate point, science is more than just empirically-based hypothesis testing. Science desperately needs philosophy to turn empirical facts into empirical evidence. Facts don't come packaged with interpretations, they only provide raw data. For example, we can obviously observe red shift in the universe. Great. What does that mean? If I deal in only the empirical, and I know you agree with this, then I am stuck at the statement "I observe red shift in the universe" without being able to move on. Then as I apply philosophical reason to this fact, reasoning that things moving apart must have been closer together) then suddenly this has transformed into empirical evidence that the universe used to be smaller.

 

Would you disagree that philosophy does in fact serve as evidence for topics within its purview, while science serves as evidence for topics within its purview?

 

 

Edit: Also, if you give the argument that philosophy doesn't count as evidence due to lack of empiricism, is there any empirical evidence to back such a claim?

[Enhance]

I merely think the two rely on one another, but there's a stark difference between philosophical reasoning (which is religion) and scientific evidence (which is not).

 

Both rely on each other to a certain extent, however both camps (theists and atheists) seem destined to bicker back and forth, when sci-phi is probably the best way to explain the universe around us.

 

Overall, I think religion relies far too heavily on philosophy to explain the world, and science relies far too heavily on science. I think, to better understand my original statement, you should understand where I'm coming from. I'm not denying that science is devoid of philosophy, which we both agree on. But, for example, we can look at the shape of the earth. Philosophy and the understanding of the world around us, hundreds of years ago, said the world was flat. We had no empirical evidence to prove otherwise. Of course, as we progressed, we discovered that Earth is a sphere caused by millions of years of rotating masses. The reason-based logical analysis had no dog in this fight, yet thought it did. This is where I was coming from when I said 'philosophical evidence seems like a bit of an oxymoron', because it kind of is.

 

Although we clearly agree it has it's applications in science, I think we can also both agree that philosophical evidence and scientific evidence are more different than they are related, especially since science has distanced itself from philosophy greatly in the last few hundred years.

[tschu]

science relies far too heavily on science.

[Enhance]

science relies far too heavily on science.

Couldn't really think of a better way to put it when I was writing this.