I will prove god's existence if....

I asked you to define intentionalist. You have yet to do so.

Before you introduced the word intentionalist, you made the following claim:



I deny that this is true with respect to science. And I defy you to demonstrate to me that REASON and PURPOSE are to be found anywhere in these scientific publications aside from a purely descriptive or mechanistic context.

participation is an interaction with another or others, in order to acheive somthing.

Science is used for many things, both practical and impractical, so that's a difficult question -- I mean my field, which is medicine, is an applied science much like engineering. But fundamentally science is a discipline that seeks to understand the physical world, its constituents, and its processes, by way of observation. Every hypothesis in science is testable through observation (including experimentation), and every conclusion has reference to data generated through observation. Logic applies only insofar as one must place observations in context with one another.

You use the word "intentionalist" synonymously with teleology. And teleology is basically anathema to science. It's like saying "we have a heart so that we can circulate blood". That is a teleological and non-scientific statement. All we can say is that the heart circulates blood. Sure, it's necessary, but it's not like the evolution or the embryonic development of the heart ever had the goal of circulation in mind -- it just so happens that the absence of a functioning heart (and circulation) is incompatible with life, and therefore does not persist.

So if I say that "glaciers participate in erosion", it's a mechanical statement -- there is no intentionality, no a priori purpose or goal contained in that statement. Participation need not imply that "in order to achieve something", and it's not used in that context in science.

My argument is that scince inevitably leads to teleolgy.

Scince attempts to find patterns, and as it expands its reach creates a logical framework for the physical universe. Is that reasonble enough?

However if we can understand the universe using this artificial structure, surely the universe must be founded, physically speaking, on a similar basis?

Logic is surely the basis for scince.

No. Observation is. Scientific logic grows out of observations, not the other way around.

If someone like me tries to suggest in the lightest of debates that certain determined events should or could be considered as evidence of engineering it is dismissed with the usual disdain..I have no problem with science just the way certain scientists have double standards..

Could science ever be persuaded without observation ?

It appears to me on so many occassions science can theorise on an event like the BB in the most strangest of ways with little observational evidence to support their claims. QM is another field of science that has no observational evidence for many of its claims.

If someone like me tries to suggest in the lightest of debates that certain determined events should or could be considered as evidence of engineering it is dismissed with the usual disdain..

Any line of scientific discussion is always, 100% of the time, rooted in something observable. And the strength of any hypothesis, argument, logic, or rhetoric lives and dies with the evidence that supports it (or the feasibility of going out and getting such evidence).

Neither fields would exist were it not for evidence. The data have undergone a lot of mathematical manipulation and theories have emerged to explain them; but you're wrong if you think that this isn't ultimately rooted in observable things. The expansion of the universe is not only observable, but it's frequently observed, for instance.

Scientists have disdain for one another's ideas at times too.

But don't worry, your contention about engineering will be taken seriously the day you provide evidence that can only be interpreted as engineering.

I will prove god's existance if...you tell me what kind of proof you require, and why it is proof at all.
So post away and we will see if we prove or disprove anything by the end of it. :shifty:

Avatar 727yiubfiuwy93rf

I will prove you do not exist.
If.. you tell me what kind of proof you require. and why it is proof at all.

PS.. Your question was posted 20 years back by another...
Philosophy forums seem to end up education forums...
with backstabbing.

Louis

So what evidence is there for say the multiverse theory?

Im not denying any theory that stands observation is acceptable but on so many occassions theory comes first by pondering then observation is tried to fit the theory..There is a distinct difference and scientist are guilty of this on numerous occassions..QM is guilty nearly all the time and the theories are accepted without any observable evidence at all.

How much circumstantial evidence would you need to consider an engineered universe?

you are prepared to accept thatbecause apes and humans look similar it requires investigation into their relationship but not that the perfect formation of the universe etc does not show the slightest intention..

On the other hand, philosophical speculation scoffs at science's demand for empirical evidence. The assumption that logic can solve real world mysteries without constant reference to the observable is ABSENT in science, but it's common in philosophy (and certainly in philosophy that makes reference to religious ideas).

Making any generalisation about Philosophy is dangerous as it is a very wide subject, and in this case you have indeed made that generalisation foolishly.

Kant at the very least was attempting to create a system of morality and ethics that was equivalant to Newton's system for understanding the physical universe.

Analytic philosophy, contemptible though it may be, attempts to reduce itself to a tool of scince.

I do generalize, but I also leave open the possibility of exception. The limits of philosophy are not fixed, and much of philosophy makes reference to the real world. And there is a growing field of experimental philosophy these days, which really subverts the notion tha truth in philosophy can be arrived at using logic alone.

Yeah, Kant also thought he could make a prescriptive system of morality for all humanity without travelling more than 20 feet from his bedroom for his entire life. Ok, an exaggeration -- more like 40 feet. Kant was a genius, but not genius enough to recognize his own hubris.

How can you accuse me of foolish generalization when you are willing to call a field of study "contemptible"? Clearly not contemptible enough to avoid being an example...