The Ownership of Science

[The Grand Nudger]

Do philosophy and justified belief depend on sound premises?  Isn't that what science is for?

Alot of people might suspect that you're spooling up some god of the gaps - but...personally, I don't know if it fits when you have to carve the hole yourself.

I really have a hard time understanding you by the way. Lol. Philosophy will use science and take a leap of faith to attempt to answer existential questions.

I bet you have a really hard time understanding alot of things, given your comments in thread.  Is that what you think philosophy is all about?  Taking leaps of faith - that's how it's done?

That's what it means, for example, to prove something?

That's a wonderful bit of voluntary information about how you see things - but do you think that philosophy and justified belief depend on sound premises, or that science is a way of generating those premises which either do, or should, inform us? Is there any problem, for example, in you or your hypothetical theist having gotten the relationship between life and the universe not just wrong, but entirely backwards..on the facts?

Does that have any effect on some belief which depends on that misunderstanding?

[Jehanne]

If God exists and spontaneously heals an adult amputee, then, yes, such would be subject to scientific investigation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_Calanda

We will discuss miracles and personal testimonies in another topic.
Do you have any problems with anybody using science to support their beliefs?

No.

[GaryAnderson]

Yes it’s about who “owns” science. Do you have any problems with philosophers using science to answer existential questions?

We seem to be changing the subject.

When it comes to existential questions, people usually answer them for themselves. Like "What's your purpose in life?" - it's not up to Francis Fukuyama or Deepak Chopra or Pope Francis to answer but everyone for themselves individually.

But people WILL use some scientific facts to answer existential questions. This is the point. Do you have any problems with anyone doing this or no?

I really have a hard time understanding you by the way. Lol. Philosophy will use science and take a leap of faith to attempt to answer existential questions.

I bet you have a really hard time understanding alot of things, given your comments in thread.  Is that what you think philosophy is all about?  Taking leaps of faith - that's how it's done?

That's what it means, for example, to prove something?

Yes that’s exactly what it means! Michio Kaku says that there’s a multiverse. Nick Bostrom, says that we live in a simulated reality.
Theists say that God created the universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, there we go. Straight from a failed to launch god of the gaps into a doomed tu qoque.

I think that scientists and philosophers both would disagree with your appraisal in this regard.

[GaryAnderson]

Well, there we go. Straight from a failed to launch god of the gaps into a doomed tu qoque.

I think that scientists and philosophers both would disagree with your appraisal in this regard.

What’s there to disagree? I’m stating their beliefs on existential questions.

[Jehanne]

Well, there we go. Straight from a failed to launch god of the gaps into a doomed tu qoque.

I think that scientists and philosophers both would disagree with your appraisal in this regard.

That there is a God who created the finely tuned Universe is, and always will be, a possibility; problem is that such a proposition is an inherently untestable hypothesis, and as other naturalistic explanations (multiverse) exist, via Occam's Razor (the scientific principle of parsimony), the naturalistic models (which are testable) are to be preferred.

[GaryAnderson]

Well, there we go. Straight from a failed to launch god of the gaps into a doomed tu qoque.

I think that scientists and philosophers both would disagree with your appraisal in this regard.

That there is a God who created the finely tuned Universe is, and always will be, a possibility; problem is that such a proposition is an inherently untestable hypothesis, and as other naturalistic explanations (multiverse) exist, via Occam's Razor (the scientific principle of parsimony), the naturalistic models (which are testable) are to be preferred.

This is correct. None of these things will be proven for as long as humanity exists. Which is why the question is: Does anybody here have any problems with people using science to take a leap of faith and answer existential “why-s”?

[Brian37]

We seem to be changing the subject.

When it comes to existential questions, people usually answer them for themselves. Like "What's your purpose in life?" - it's not up to Francis Fukuyama or Deepak Chopra or Pope Francis to answer but everyone for themselves individually.

But people WILL use some scientific facts to answer existential questions. This is the point. Do you have any problems with anyone doing this or no?

I bet you have a really hard time understanding alot of things, given your comments in thread.  Is that what you think philosophy is all about?  Taking leaps of faith - that's how it's done?

That's what it means, for example, to prove something?

Yes that’s exactly what it means! Michio Kaku says that there’s a multiverse. Nick Bostrom, says that we live in a simulated reality.
Theists say that God created the universe because it’s fine-tuned for life.

"Fine tuned for life" is the biggest joke argument theists make for the existence of a God. I once had a Jewish co worker who knew I was an atheist, and we were outside the pizza joint we worked at one night taking a break, and he was miffed that I didn't believe in a god, and he pointed to the clear nighttime sky and the pretty stars and said, "Isn't that proof that God exists?".  I responded, "Yea, it is so pretty. Ok, take a space shuttle up into orbit, take a space walk and take your helmet off, you'll find out how "fine tuned" the universe is for humans."

[The Grand Nudger]

You don't realize how the first part of the sentence is incoherent with respect to the second - but I want to point out that you mis-titled this thread.

What you really wanted to know was who owned faithing. Have at it, it's all yours?

[LadyForCamus]

Maybe you should be addressing the logical mistakes pointed out to you in your first thread before you move on to a new one. Just an idea.