There is no evidence for a biblical jesus

[Doug Shaver]

science is one of many branches of philosophy.

It originated as such. Science is what scientists do, and few scientists nowadays do philosophy. There still is a branch of philosophy called philosophy of science. Its practitioners are called philosophers of science. They are not called scientists.

[Doug Shaver]

Science offers demonstrable evidence, based on fact.

Can you explain, without using any philosophical arguments, how anyone can know that?

[Doug Shaver]

Hm, depends, what breed of dog are we talking here?

All of them, last I heard. If you know of any exceptions, do tell.

[Tassman]

No more than we could refute someone who claims a flat earth.

Refuting claims of a flat earth is not a problem. The notion of a flat earth is a long superseded scientific hypothesis and there is a wealth of verified empirical evidence supporting heliocentrism and the orbiting spheres of the solar system - including earth.

But, there is neither verified evidence supporting claims of the supernatural nor any methodology for establishing its existence. It is a discredited notion dating back to a credulous era long before the advent of the modern scientific method and kept alive by the religions.

[Tassman]

You say, "Here's empirical evidence proving X." Someone says, "Prove that your empirical evidence should be accepted as proof of X."

What now?

Science is not in the business of providing “proofs”; but it can provide tested verified evidence that is subject to falsification. So far, the basis of the natural sciences, namely the principle of uniformity and the laws and constants of nature do not appear to change over time and they also appear to exist throughout the universe.

And so far the principle of uniformity and the constants of nature have been verified and produced an enormous body of verified knowledge, so it is more than likely that science is on the right track.

Conversely, supernaturalism has produced nothing except than conflicting belief systems and no body of verified evidence.

[Tassman]

Before I can answer that I need to ask you a couple of questions. Are you a proponent of solipsism? Do you exist? or are you a figment of someone's mind? Are you really a Christian?, or are you a higher beings puppet?I can show that order can and does come from chaos.

Spot on response, BB. And the problem with solipsism is that one cannot claim anything is real – including one’s view of the resurrection and personal salvation. Solipsism is a bankrupt and unproductive philosophical notion.

And as for the mindless mini-rant from the same source, questions which are answered by philosophy must be based on valid premises. The conclusion is valid only as long as the premise is valid. And what makes a premise valid is empirical evidence. Nothing else! It is the empirical evidence that determines reality, NOT the philosophy that argues for it.

[Rational Gaze]

Solipsism is a bankrupt and unproductive philosophical notion.

What reasons do you actually have for actually rejecting Solipsism? Or is this yet another bare assertion?

It is the empirical evidence that determines reality, NOT the philosophy that argues for it.

Without philosophy, then you have no rational grounds for believing that empirical evidence is acceptable to prove anything.

[bertatberts]

Can you explain, without using any philosophical arguments, how anyone can know that?

A bullet fired from a gun, will kill you.

[bertatberts]

Maybe I am,

You are what! A puppet for a god, a proponent of solipsism? Do you exist? Or are you a figment of someone's mind? Are you really a Christian. Which!

can you scientifically prove or disprove that and if you can’t (and I know you can’t), then how can you trust anything?

What do I need to prove, I asked if you could clarify a few points first, to make it better for me to answer your original question, you’ve gone off on a tangent.

]Are you STILL incapable of seeing that science can’t prove or disprove that idea and the idea that the universe is a physical place that exists outside your head is actually an idea that is rooted in philosophy and not science?

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. You're demonstrably wrong on all counts, if I observe a cup and you observe the same cup, and Fred down the road observes it too. Which one of us observed it or are you saying you are the only conscience in existence, if someone shot you, would you not die. If I smacked you round the face would you not feel it. Talk sense please!

By assuming that the human mind is capable of understanding the universe or that the universe runs in a logical fashion, sure you can. However; can you scientifically prove those key assumptions

Yes science is demonstrably better then philosophy, for the simply reason it is demonstrable! lol.

or have you never actually opened up a philosophy book and discover that you can't because those are assumptions rooted in philosophical understanding?

Exactly philosophy asks the question, science answers it.(my emphasis)

I hate to burst your delusional bubble, but you can’t scientifically prove the things I asked you because the questions can’t be answered by science, but philosophy.

Philosophy by its very nature, cannot answer any questions, because it is the positing of a question.
For instance this is philosophy, Transcendental universe building pixies created the universe, now prove me wrong using only philosophy.

What is so hard to grasp about this? Do you like sounding like an ignorant dolt that doesn’t understand the philosophy of science (which is a valid field of study that really exist and really has classes and entire degrees devoted to it)?

Nobody said it hadn't, Strawman.
All I'm saying is that philosophy is subordinate to science.

Now go ahead Bert, address this because I have asked atheist that worship at the altar of science thses questions for year and have yet to see a single one of them answer it. Think you can?
BTW it’s cute you call me ‘lilpixlated’, but I’m not the one sounding like an ignorant dolt

Ah! But you are.

that doesn’t understand the philosophy of science, you do. Tell me Bert, what is your college field of study in? Mine is the sciences?

Yes most likely domestic sciences.
The fact you used, "the sciences" at the end of your inane tirade, demonstrates you had a very poor science education, because you could not think to use there proper names such as Chemistry, Biology, and Physics. Or did you by chance mean Christian Science, lol.

[Rational Gaze]

What can science NOT prove?
1) Logical truths.
2) Mathematical truths.
3) Metaphysical truths.
4) Moral truths.
5) Aesthetic truths.
6) The validity of the scientific method.

It is also silent on personal explanations and why questions.

[Hamster]

A bullet fired from a gun, will kill you.

Sorry you haven't proven you exist in the first place

What you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I've ever heard. At no point were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought

Calling it names doesn't answer the question. But the only way you can answer the question is by using philosophy. I could also ask you how you know what you know and why you assume your brain is giving you true information about the world around you.

Philosophy by its very nature, cannot answer any questions

Cool, no more euthyphro or problem of evil

The fact you used, "the sciences" at the end of your inane tirade, demonstrates you had a very poor science education

[Tassman]

What reasons do you actually have for actually rejecting Solipsism? Or is this yet another bare assertion?

No it’s not a “bare assertion”, I’ve given the reason. Solipsism is OK as far as it goes, but it is an unproductive philosophical theory compared to the external nature of “realism”. What realism calls "the external universe", solipsism calls "one’s unconscious mind" but they are basically the same, given that one’s “unconscious mind” functions with the same degree of complexity as the universe proposed by “realism”.

Without philosophy, then you have no rational grounds for believing that empirical evidence is acceptable to prove anything.

For the umpteenth time, empirical evidence doesn’t prove anything. What it provides is tested verified evidence that is subject to falsification. On this basis the principle of uniformity and the laws and constants of nature appear unchanging and universal and have shown themselves to be highly productive in the advancement of knowledge and betterment of humankind. But they remain in principle subject to falsification.

Re philosophy, it certainly has value insofar as it asks questions that compel us to find answers. But philosophy is no more than speculative opinion unless it correlates with reality and what enables it to correlate with reality in the final analysis is empirical evidence. Thus, once again, it is the empirical evidence that determines reality, NOT the philosophy that argues for it. If there is conflict between a philosophical proposition and empirical evidence the latter is the final authority in every instance. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing philosophical explanation.

[Challenger Grim]

Refuting claims of a flat earth is not a problem. The notion of a flat earth is a long superseded scientific hypothesis and there is a wealth of verified empirical evidence supporting heliocentrism and the orbiting spheres of the solar system - including earth.

But, there is neither verified evidence supporting claims of the supernatural nor any methodology for establishing its existence. It is a discredited notion dating back to a credulous era long before the advent of the modern scientific method and kept alive by the religions.

Your brain must have the density of a neutron star.

Well, thanks for proving my exact point. Guess I'm not needed around here any more.

[Darth Ovious]

Is it just me or are these two dense dunderheads using philosophy to try and argue their points in the first place.

[Rational Gaze]

No it’s not a “bare assertion”, I’ve given the reason. Solipsism is OK as far as it goes, but it is an unproductive philosophical theory compared to the external nature of “realism”. What realism calls "the external universe", solipsism calls "one’s unconscious mind" but they are basically the same, given that one’s “unconscious mind” functions with the same degree of complexity as the universe proposed by “realism”.

That is not a valid reason for rejecting Solipsism. In fact, it seems by arguing that Solipsism and Realism are the same thing, you are thereby tacitly implying that both are equally valid. Yet you tell us that Solipsism is an unproductive philosophical theory! You can't have it both ways. What rational basis do you have for rejecting Solipsism and embracing Realism? I can tell you right now, it ain't science. It's certainly not cricket.

For the umpteenth time, empirical evidence doesn’t prove anything. What it provides is tested verified evidence that is subject to falsification. On this basis the principle of uniformity and the laws and constants of nature appear unchanging and universal and have shown themselves to be highly productive in the advancement of knowledge and betterment of humankind. But they remain in principle subject to falsification.

Interesting. So you would maintain that physical evidence is not proof of the existence of physical evidence? I would think if I found a rock, then it would be proof that that rock exists.

Re philosophy, it certainly has value insofar as it asks questions that compel us to find answers. But philosophy is no more than speculative opinion unless it correlates with reality and what enables it to correlate with reality in the final analysis is empirical evidence. Thus, once again, it is the empirical evidence that determines reality, NOT the philosophy that argues for it. If there is conflict between a philosophical proposition and empirical evidence the latter is the final authority in every instance. Never has an empirical scientific discovery been deemed wrong and replaced by a more convincing philosophical explanation.

Actually, I think you'll find that scientific notions have been discarded based on philosophical arguments. I shall quote some SCIENTISTS for you, so that you can't try and weasel out by claiming philosophers have no business pontificating on science.

G.F.R Ellis, U. Kirchner, and W.R Stoeger, "Multiverses and Physical Cosmology," v3 2003, [url

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305292[/url] (Accessed July 22nd 2011)]Can there be an infinite set of really existing universes? We suggest that, on the basis of well-known philosophical arguments, the answer is No... This is precisely why a realised past infinity in time is not considered possible from this standpoint - since it involves an infinite set of completed events or moments.

© source where applicable

Check and mate.