Evidence for God from Science

Audie wrote:My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?

Science is interpreted based on philosophical Points of view.
Without philosophy, there is no reason because there is no method to INTERPRET results.

Audie wrote:My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?

Audie, philosophy is the study of logic. What does science mean without logic? You tell me.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?

Audie, philosophy is the study of logic. What does science mean without logic? You tell me.

Hmm, does logic need philosophy, or does philosophy need logic same
as math and science do?

There was no mention of philosophy in any science class I ever took, tho I did find that
the one phil. class I took was most helpful for the logic section of the lsat.

You mentioned scientific proof earlier. What did you mean by that?

PaulSacramento wrote:

Audie wrote:My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?

Science is interpreted based on philosophical Points of view.
Without philosophy, there is no reason because there is no method to INTERPRET results.

Maybe this is just about what one thinks of as "philosophy".

I've no idea what phil. pov one applies to interpretation of data.

Audie wrote:To me proof can be done in math only.

Ok, here is a try:

0 != something

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:To me proof can be done in math only.

Ok, here is a try:

0 != something

Sheesh, at least let me know if you went over my head
with that!

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?

Audie, philosophy is the study of logic. What does science mean without logic? You tell me.

Hmm, does logic need philosophy, or does philosophy need logic same
as math and science do?

As I said, philosphy is the study of logic. You simply cannot divroce science from philosophy.

Audie wrote:There was no mention of philosophy in any science class I ever took, tho I did find that
the one phil. class I took was most helpful for the logic section of the lsat.

Of course, one can study any branch of the sciences without studying the fundamentals. It certainly doesn't mean they are disconnected or unrelated.

Audie wrote:You mentioned scientific proof earlier. What did you mean by that?

I mentioned philosophical proof and scientific evidence. Big difference. But before we get to the scientific evidence I was hoping to tackle the philosophical proof first. If you're not interested in that we can certainly jump to the scientific evidence.

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:To me proof can be done in math only.

Ok, here is a try:

0 != something

Sheesh, at least let me know if you went over my head
with that!

I had to look that idiom up
go over somebody's head
1. to talk to or deal with someone's boss without talking to them first I really don't want to go over her head but if she won't listen to me I have no choice.
2. if a piece of information goes over someone's head, they do not understand it The bit about tax went straight over my head - was it important?

I just said that there is something rather then nothing.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:My last q. has much to do with who might benefit from baby
sreps!

On what basis do you say phil.is essential to science?

Audie, philosophy is the study of logic. What does science mean without logic? You tell me.

Hmm, does logic need philosophy, or does philosophy need logic same
as math and science do?

As I said, philosphy is the study of logic. You simply cannot divroce science from philosophy.

Audie wrote:There was no mention of philosophy in any science class I ever took, tho I did find that
the one phil. class I took was most helpful for the logic section of the lsat.

Of course, one can study any branch of the sciences without studying the fundamentals. It certainly doesn't mean they are disconnected or unrelated.

Audie wrote:You mentioned scientific proof earlier. What did you mean by that?

I mentioned philosophical proof and scientific evidence. Big difference. But before we get to the scientific evidence I was hoping to tackle the philosophical proof first. If you're not interested in that we can certainly jump to the scientific evidence.

.

A few posts back you said " scientific proofs"

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:To me proof can be done in math only.

Ok, here is a try:

0 != something

Sheesh, at least let me know if you went over my head
with that!

I had to look that idiom up
go over somebody's head
1. to talk to or deal with someone's boss without talking to them first I really don't want to go over her head but if she won't listen to me I have no choice.
2. if a piece of information goes over someone's head, they do not understand it The bit about tax went straight over my head - was it important?

I just said that there is something rather then nothing.

ok..so...? If we are on a topic i dont know what it is.

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:To me proof can be done in math only.

Ok, here is a try:

0 != something

Sheesh, at least let me know if you went over my head
with that!

I had to look that idiom up
go over somebody's head
1. to talk to or deal with someone's boss without talking to them first I really don't want to go over her head but if she won't listen to me I have no choice.
2. if a piece of information goes over someone's head, they do not understand it The bit about tax went straight over my head - was it important?

I just said that there is something rather then nothing.

ok..so...? If we are on a topic i dont know what it is.

Byblos said: "From reason alone we can prove the existance of a timeless, immaterial, omniscient, omnipotent first mover."

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:

1over137 wrote:

Audie wrote:To me proof can be done in math only.

Ok, here is a try:

0 != something

Sheesh, at least let me know if you went over my head
with that!

I had to look that idiom up
go over somebody's head
1. to talk to or deal with someone's boss without talking to them first I really don't want to go over her head but if she won't listen to me I have no choice.
2. if a piece of information goes over someone's head, they do not understand it The bit about tax went straight over my head - was it important?

I just said that there is something rather then nothing.

ok..so...? If we are on a topic i dont know what it is.

Did you even bother to read my post that stated that science is founded in philosophic principles, or pay any attention to my explanation on why?

Also, to explain 1/137's explanation, it's a programming reference. (Programming involves quite a bit of math.) "!" in some programming languages usually denotes "NOT" as a mathematical principle. (I'm not a programmer, but I've done some silly stuff in variants of "MUSHcode").

Go back and read 1/137's post, reading the "!" in the equation as "does not".

Audie wrote:A few posts back you said " scientific proofs"

Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself:

Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs.

I think the contaxt is clear what I am referring to are general scientific proofs (e.g. mathematical proofs).


In any case, we can go in either direction, philosophy (proof) or science (evidence). Your preference.

Kurieuo wrote:

Audie wrote:I dont see how it can be the same kind of faith, when you can do the one based on very concrete facts and repeatable tests, and the other is based on.....?

What reality is it that one comprehends, in a religious belief?

Prove to me that Positivism is true based upon your same criteria for justification.

Audie wrote:Prove to me that it is possible to determine what is inside a brick.

That sounds a bit childish to me.

My question is a valid question and is often asked of those who hold to Positivism like you appear to advocate when you asked for "concrete facts and repeatable tests."

It is interesting that many who believe that science can only provide true knowledge, appear to say silly things like Philosophy is dead and not needed (e.g., Hawking, Dawkins, Krauss).

Their theory of knowledge, and justified belief, is a philosophical stance. Indeed, the scientific pursuit is steeped in philosophy of how science functions and should work. The syllogisms in ruling out scientific theories based upon tests, our reasoning ability and rational facilities that are often unquestionably accepted, even belong foundationally within Philosophy itself.

So if you wish to also support these philosophically blind secular scientists, then prove that your "scientific" methods of determining truth are absolute and do not require faith. For example, what do you mean by "concrete facts"? And if all justified knowledge is only that which can be repeated in tests then on what grounds do you accept that very position (Positivism) itself as being justified?

You can either make yourself look more silly by asking me to again prove what is inside a brick, or you can actually try and provide a well-thought out response.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:A few posts back you said " scientific proofs"

Yes, I said the words 'scientific proofs' but not in the context of proofs for God's existance. I will quote myself:

Byblos wrote:If you don't think phylosophical proofs are possible then you've just singlehandedly dismantled every rational argument ever made. And that includes scientific proofs.

I think the contaxt is clear what I am referring to are general scientific proofs (e.g. mathematical proofs).


In any case, we can go in either direction, philosophy (proof) or science (evidence). Your preference.

I never heard of a "general scientific proof", math in not science, and it is my understanding that science does not "do" proof, so, I really dont know where you are coming from in this.