Open Burden of Proof - The scientific way to examine verifiable evidence Doc
C&P all x 12
868 pages.
Randomly select item from doc.
[pg dn]
Only by actually observing the universe were we able to arrive at the truth that the universe had to have started some 13 billion years ago and is currently expanding, and is not static |
.
That is an interesting belief you have about the universe. I wonder if you are aware that other non theists have also argued on this board - very recently - that the universe may have always existed?
Quote: |
Pure Philosophy would have never led us to the truth. |
All you are doing here is ignoring the difference between scientific 'truth' and philosophical 'truth' and how the two methods differ.
One examines physical evidence, the other examines thought.
If a thought is shared and someone finds a contradiction therein, this is philosophy applied. 'Pure' philosophy is no different than ordinary everyday garden variety philosophy.
Quote: |
So philosophy cannot lead us to truth. |
Which wasn't really my argument at all. My argument is that science is of no use in relation to ideas of GOD.
Quote: |
Philosophers used to believe that if you just sat in a chair and thought about things long enough and reasoned them out, you would necessarily be able to discover the truth of everything. |
So what? Scientists used to think the earth was the center of all existence.
What has your comment to do with what I said?
Quote: |
But that turns out to be clearly false. Relying on pure philosophy you cannot be assured that what you think is reasonable or logical actually represents truth. |
When it comes to ideas which science cannot address, then philosophy exists for that purpose.
Rely on science for what science is able to do.
Reason and logic in relation to philosophical questions should be and often are forefront to good philosophical discussion on ideas - even on ideas of GOD.
Quote: |
So truth is not a subject that philosophy is able to discuss or debate. |
Of course it is. Your reasoning is skewered.
Quote: |
Philosophy cannot say anything about what might or might not be true. |
Of course it can.
"Might the existence of GOD be true or not true? Let us approach this with philosophy and see therein if we can establish that it might be true."
Quote: |
Only science can do that. |
Really? "Might the existence of GOD be true or not true? Let us approach this with science and see therein if we can establish that it might be true."
Quote: |
You might argue that science is a "philosophy", but it's not based on just pure thinking. |
Quote: |
I argue that science is science and philosophy is philosophy. Different methods for different subjects.
You need to be able to confirm what you are thinking via testing what reality actually has to offer. And that is the crucial element that is missing from pure philosophy.
So only science can lead us to truth. Philosophy has proven that it cannot discover truth on its own. |
You appear to be going off on a tangent and arguing something as if somehow, I was arguing the opposite.
I am arguing that science is not the right tool for the job re ideas of GOD.
I am arguing that philosophy is better for that.
Your post has done nothing to convince me otherwise. You have misconstrued by the look of it.
"Claiming that science has done away with God is a totally bogus. The question of God is not a scientific question. Physics, chemistry, astronomy, and the like will never solve it, are not equipped to do so. There question of God is more like a matter in math or logic than science. All the scientists can do is tell us what kind of universe we have got--and that's it. That's their job. If they find we have got a different universe than we thought, that simply means God created in a different way than we thought--and that's it. Science is neutral on the question of God. And the same holds for the other big questions of life. Science is not equipped to deal with questions of meaning, value, significance."