Argument against atheism

[The Grand Nudger]

Depends on what subject we're looking at, but broadly defined-
Evidence in its broadest sense includes everything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion
-As regards to the kind of evidence I prefer-
Scientific evidence has no universally accepted definition but generally refers to evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

The criteria for evidence in any area orignated in the same place as any criteria, our own constant refinements of the concept applied to reality and production of results specifically in the case of scientific evidence.

How evidence may be gathered is determined by the subject. That the application of evidence is a method through which things can be confirmed or denied was once an assumption, it has since shown results, and could be falsified at any point. No assumption or axioms required (and in fact both are a hindrance to the enterprise as a whole).

Incorrect, it is based on the varied results of any given system when it has been applied in different areas. No assumption required. I needn't even know why a system has limitations to demonstrate that it does.

---

I'm not saying that philosophy is useless, simply that we are at a point where we require more than philosophy by itself to draw conclusions. Also, that you often find people applying philosophy to subjects which would be better served by another tool, or combination of tools. That in any given situation the more tools you leverage the better the results. That simply accepting axioms is demonstrably bad practice, and that many things described as axioms and assumptions by those with the philosophic bent are neither.

This isn't anything radical or strange. We realized this a couple hundred years ago, and it's the reason that physicists get degrees in hard sciences rather than majoring in greek philosophy.