So called philosophical evidence for god are not really even evidence

the science accepts that there is "controller" determinant which determines what happens and what doesnt, otherwise everything would happen or nothing would.

the debate is about:

1. Is determinant itself determined by something else (forcing infinite regress)
2. Is determinant self-determined (circularity)
3. Is determinant eternal (uncaused cause)
4. Is that determinant God or mindless God or just logic and laws of reality

"In philosophy and law and science theres the concept that purely philosophical evidence isnt even evidence. "

Says who? You?

What's up Doc.

They did say "the concept".

Hmmmm, what's the difference between a concept and a hypothesis.

Though for sure, for some, hypothetical GODS are evidence enough...And are certainly the reason for a whole lot of persecution, suffering and death over the past millennia or two.

Top of the morning to ya.

Dr.Franklin wrote:

"In philosophy and law and science theres the concept that purely philosophical evidence isnt even evidence. "

Says who? You?

Yes — there are several serious philosophers and scientists of knowledge who argue that *purely a priori philosophical arguments* are weaker than empirical evidence, or in some cases should not count as evidence about reality at all unless tied to observation, prediction, or experience.

A few strong sources you could cite depending on how strong you want the claim to be:

* David Hume

Hume famously argued that claims about the world ultimately depend on experience, not pure reason. In *An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding*, he sharply criticizes metaphysical speculation detached from empirical evidence.

One famous line:

> “Commit it then to the flames…”

> referring to works containing neither abstract reasoning about quantity nor experimental reasoning about matters of fact.

* Karl Popper

Popper argued that philosophical or scientific claims that cannot in principle be falsified by evidence are not genuinely scientific knowledge. He did not reject philosophy entirely, but he denied that unfalsifiable reasoning should be treated like empirical evidence.

* W. V. O. Quine

Quine attacked the idea that there is a sharp divide between analytic truths and empirical truths. His paper “Two Dogmas of Empiricism” is hugely influential in undermining confidence in purely conceptual philosophical certainty.

* Bertrand Russell

Russell increasingly moved toward empiricism and scientific realism later in life, emphasizing that philosophy without connection to evidence becomes speculative.

* Daniel Dennett

Dennett often argued that philosophy should work continuously with cognitive science, neuroscience, and evolution rather than rely on armchair intuitions alone.

* Sean Carroll

A modern example. Carroll explicitly argues that purely philosophical arguments cannot establish facts about physical reality without empirical grounding.

Probably the most academically precise formulation close to your statement is something like:

> “Conceptual or philosophical reasoning alone is insufficient to establish factual claims about external reality without empirical support.”

That position is associated broadly with empiricism, logical positivism, scientific naturalism, and parts of analytic philosophy.

But there’s an important nuance:

Most philosophers would *not* say philosophical arguments are “not evidence” in every sense. Rather, they would say:

* they can clarify concepts,

* reveal logical contradictions,

* explore implications,

* or shift probability,

but they are usually weaker than direct empirical confirmation when discussing the actual structure of reality.

So if you want the strongest academically defensible wording, I’d avoid:

> “Philosophical arguments are not evidence.”

and instead use:

> “Purely philosophical arguments, without empirical support, are generally considered insufficient to establish factual claims about reality.”

That position has substantial support in modern philosophy of science and empiricist traditions.

Yes. In both science and law, there are authoritative traditions emphasizing that argument alone is weaker than empirical or evidentiary support.

For science:

* Carl Sagan

Famously:

> “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

That line captures the scientific norm that logical possibility or philosophical coherence is not enough.

* Richard Feynman

Feynman repeatedly emphasized that nature — not reasoning elegance — is the final judge:

> “It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is… if it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.”

That is one of the clearest scientific statements subordinating philosophy/theory to empirical verification.

* Francis Bacon

Often considered the father of empiricism and the scientific method. Bacon argued systematic observation and experimentation must ground knowledge claims.

* National Academy of Sciences

Their descriptions of science consistently define scientific knowledge as evidence-based, testable, and observational rather than purely speculative.

For law, the distinction is even clearer:

Courts generally do *not* treat philosophical reasoning alone as evidence. Evidence usually means testimony, documents, physical evidence, expert analysis, or observable facts.

A few strong legal anchors:

* Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

This is probably your strongest legal citation.

The Supreme Court held that expert claims must be scientifically grounded and testable, not merely speculative or theoretically asserted. The Daubert standard emphasizes:

* testing,

* peer review,

* error rates,

* and general acceptance.

In other words, reasoned argument alone is insufficient for scientific reliability in court.

* Federal Rules of Evidence

Especially Rule 702 on expert testimony:

expert opinions must rest on “sufficient facts or data” and “reliable principles and methods.”

* Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.

Holmes often emphasized practical consequences and real-world experience over abstract metaphysics in jurisprudence.

You could synthesize these into a very defensible proposition like:

> “In both modern science and law, theoretical or philosophical coherence alone is generally not treated as sufficient evidence for factual claims without empirical, observational, or demonstrable support.”

That would be difficult to dismiss as fringe or anti-philosophical because it reflects mainstream evidentiary standards in both disciplines.

Says who? You?

Do you really need an authoritative source to recognize that you cannot prove the empirical existence of a being with thoughts alone?

Incredible strawman and assumptions. Since when was God defined by your standard of "empirical existence"

Thank you for the AI generated text

Dr.Franklin wrote:

Thank you for the AI generated text

You asked for sources, I gave yiu sources. Its not my fault you cant or dont wanna engage the ideas

I dont know how you think you can prove factual claims without factual evidence. Philosophy could at best be consistent with factual claims and not evidence when theres equally consistent counter philosophy.

Thank you for the AI generated text

Just reply with an AI generated counterargument.

The claim is not obviously true, because it quietly assumes that all knowledge about reality must ultimately come from sensory observation. But that assumption itself is not established empirically. It is a philosophical principle.

A strong counterargument is that some truths about reality appear knowable prior to observation:

1. Logic
2. Mathematics
3. Identity
4. Causality
5. Possibility/impossibility
6. Inference itself

If someone says “only empirical evidence counts about reality,” that statement is not itself an empirical discovery. No experiment measures that principle. It is a philosophical rule imposed a priori. So the position risks self-reference problems.

You can structure the disproof several ways.

1. Empiricism depends on a priori assumptions

Empirical science already presupposes non-empirical principles:

1. The law of non-contradiction
2. Reliability of inference
3. Uniformity of nature
4. Mathematical validity
5. Existence of causal relations

None of these are directly observed as raw sensory data.

For example, no microscope detects the law of non-contradiction. Yet without it, interpreting evidence becomes impossible.

So purely philosophical reasoning cannot be dismissed as “non-evidence,” because empirical reasoning itself stands on philosophical foundations.

2. Observation alone cannot generate universal truths

Experience only gives finite observations.

Suppose you observe 10,000 falling objects. Empirically, you only know:

“These observed objects fell.”

You do not directly observe the universal rule:

“All unsupported objects fall.”

The jump from finite cases to universal law requires induction — a philosophical principle.

\forall x,(Observed(x) \rightarrow Falls(x)) \not\Rightarrow \forall x,(Falls(x))

So empirical evidence alone cannot justify many scientific conclusions without additional a priori reasoning.

3. Some truths are necessarily true independent of experience

Consider:

“A square circle cannot exist.”

This is not learned by surveying the universe for square circles.

It is known through conceptual analysis alone. The contradiction is intrinsic.

Likewise:

1. 2 + 2 = 4
2. If A = B and B = C, then A = C
3. Nothing can both exist and not exist in the same respect simultaneously

These are not weaker because they are non-empirical. In fact, they are often treated as more certain than sensory observations, since observations can be mistaken.

A mirage can deceive perception.

A contradiction cannot become true through better instrumentation.

4. Empirical evidence itself requires interpretation

Raw sensations are not self-explanatory.

Two people can observe identical data and reach different conclusions because interpretation depends on prior conceptual frameworks.

Example:

1. Data does not interpret itself.
2. Philosophical assumptions determine what counts as explanation, causation, identity, probability, evidence, etc.

Therefore philosophy is not merely “optional decoration” around empiricism; it partly determines what empiricism even means.

5. Some realities may be inaccessible to direct observation

If something is:

1. abstract,
2. metaphysical,
3. logical,
4. mathematical,
5. modal (possible/impossible),
6. or foundational,

then demanding empirical observation may be category error.

For example:

1. numbers are not observed like rocks,
2. logical validity is not detected by telescopes,
3. possibility/impossibility are not physical measurements.

Yet these clearly affect reasoning about reality.

6. The dismissal principle defeats itself

The statement:

“Purely a priori arguments should not count as evidence about reality unless tied to observation.”

is itself:

1. not an empirical observation,
2. not experimentally verified,
3. not derived from sensory measurement.

It is a philosophical epistemic rule.

So if the rule were true, it undermines its own justification.

7. History shows successful a priori discovery

There are cases where reasoning preceded observation:

1. Mathematical physics predicted phenomena later observed.
2. Albert Einstein derived consequences from theoretical principles before experimental confirmation.
3. Non-Euclidean geometry existed before physical application.
4. Dirac predicted antimatter mathematically before observation.

This shows a priori reasoning can genuinely track reality rather than merely reorganize observations afterward.

A weaker version of empiricism is much harder to disprove:

“Empirical evidence is usually more reliable for claims about contingent physical facts.”

That is more defensible.

But the stronger claim —

that purely philosophical arguments are not evidence about reality at all unless empirically tied —

fails because:

1. empiricism relies on philosophy,
2. universal inference exceeds observation,
3. logic/math are non-empirical yet indispensable,
4. the claim itself is philosophical rather than empirical.

Empiricism is the only way we can know the world. We can make inferences empirically but its still inferences based on empiricism, my whole point. Its fair to draw larger conclusions such as something other than the universe probably caused the universe, but that doesnt in Any real meaningful sense prove god, just that something caused the universe. And to any extent that you make those inferences its based again empirically

See my last post

The claim defeats itself if taken literally.

“Empiricism is the only way we can know the world.”

That statement is not itself an empirical observation. You cannot measure it in a lab, weigh it, see it through a telescope, or derive it from sensory data alone. It is a philosophical principle about knowledge. So if the statement is true, then the statement itself cannot be known to be true.

That is a classic self-referential problem with strict empiricism.

A stronger version of empiricism usually retreats to something softer, like:

“Empirical methods are the most reliable for discovering physical facts.”

That is much harder to attack. But it is very different from saying empiricism is the only source of knowledge.

There are several categories of knowledge that are not derived purely from empirical observation:

1. Logic is not empirical

Basic logical truths are not learned through experimentation.

For example:

A \lor \neg A

The law of excluded middle (“A or not A”) is not something discovered by observing many objects in nature. It is a structural principle of reasoning itself.

Likewise:

A \land \neg A

cannot both be true simultaneously in classical logic.

No empirical experiment proves logic without already presupposing logic. Every experiment already assumes inference rules, identity, non-contradiction, validity of reasoning, etc.

Empiricism therefore depends on non-empirical foundations.

2. Mathematics is not fundamentally empirical

You do not need to perform physical experiments to know:

2+2=4

or:

genui{"math_block_widget_always_prefetch_v2":{"content":"a^2+b^2=c^2"}}

for right triangles.

You can verify examples empirically, but the truth itself is not contingent on measurement. If every physical triangle vanished from existence, the theorem would still hold.

Empirical observation may inspire mathematics, but mathematical necessity is not established by sensory observation alone.

3. Empiricism cannot justify induction by itself

Science relies heavily on induction:

1. the future will resemble the past
2. repeated patterns imply laws
3. observed regularities continue

But this principle itself cannot be empirically proven without circularity.

David Hume pointed this out centuries ago:

1. If you justify induction by saying “it worked before,” you are already assuming induction.

So empiricism relies on a non-empirical assumption: that inference from past to future is rational.

4. Causality itself is not directly observed

The statement:

“something caused the universe”

already goes beyond raw sensory data.

What we observe are sequences and correlations. “Cause” is an inferred metaphysical relation.

Hume again argued that causation is not literally seen; we observe events followed by events.

So even basic scientific reasoning already contains conceptual structures beyond direct empiricism.

5. Moral truths are not empirically measurable

Claims like:

1. torture is wrong
2. truth is preferable to deception
3. rational consistency matters

are not measurable in the same way mass or temperature are.

You can measure human reactions to morality, but not morality itself through empirical instruments alone.

Yet most people still treat at least some moral truths as meaningful knowledge.

6. Conscious experience is not reducible to third-person empiricism

Your awareness of your own consciousness is immediate, not inferred from observation.

You do not run an experiment to know:

1. “I am experiencing pain”
2. “I am thinking”

Descartes’ point survives here:

awareness of thinking is more certain than sensory knowledge, because senses can deceive.

7. The scientific method itself is partly philosophical

Science presupposes:

1. logic
2. uniformity of nature
3. reliability of reasoning
4. existence of an external world
5. meaningfulness of truth

None of these are established purely empirically without circularity.

Science works extraordinarily well, but its foundations are not themselves derived entirely from empirical testing.

The original statement also overstates what “empirical” means.

Inference is not the same thing as observation.

Once someone says:

“we infer larger conclusions from empirical evidence”

they have already admitted that reason contributes something beyond raw sensory input.

Evidence alone never mechanically interprets itself. Interpretation requires:

1. logic
2. abstraction
3. metaphysical assumptions
4. probability judgments
5. conceptual frameworks

So empiricism alone is insufficient even for science itself.

A more defensible position would be:

“Empirical evidence is the best tool for investigating physical reality, but reason, logic, mathematics, and philosophical assumptions are also necessary for knowledge.”

That avoids the self-refutation problem while preserving the strength of science.

Any other claim you want chatgpt to defeat?

Your position is close to a form of *empirically grounded fallibilism*: even when we reason abstractly, our confidence in those abstractions is ultimately tied to observation, experience, and testing against reality.

A philosopher in the empiricist tradition like David Hume would sympathize with much of what you are saying. Even causal reasoning itself, in Hume’s view, comes from repeated experience of regularities rather than direct rational access to metaphysical necessity.

What you’re distinguishing is important:

* **Observation/data** → “The universe exists.”

* **Inference from evidence** → “Things that begin or are contingent appear to have causes.”

* **Further metaphysical leap** → “Therefore a timeless, personal, omnipotent God exists.”

You’re arguing the first two steps may be reasonable, but the third goes far beyond what the evidence strictly establishes.

That’s a legitimate critique of many apologetic arguments. For example, even if someone accepted a cosmological argument like:

\text{Universe exists} \Rightarrow \exists x,(x\text{ caused universe})

…the conclusion only gets you to *some* explanatory ground or cause. It does not automatically establish:

* omniscience,

* moral perfection,

* personhood,

* the Trinity,

* Christianity,

* or even that the cause resembles “God” in the religious sense.

That’s why many philosophers distinguish:

* **Natural theology** (arguments for some ultimate cause or ground of being)

from

* **Revealed theology** (claims about a specific religion).

Even philosophers who defend God through reason, like Thomas Aquinas, generally saw cosmological arguments as establishing only limited attributes at first, not the entire content of Christianity.

You’re also making a deeper epistemological claim:

> Reason itself operates on patterns learned from experience.

That places you closer to empiricism than rationalism. A rationalist like René Descartes would argue some truths are knowable independently of sensory experience. You seem skeptical of that.

One nuance, though: strict empiricism runs into its own problems because some foundational things are difficult to justify purely through sensory evidence alone:

* logic,

* mathematics,

* induction itself,

* consciousness,

* moral truths,

* the reliability of reason.

For example, the principle:

> “Only empirically verifiable claims count as knowledge”

is not itself empirically verifiable. That was one of the major criticisms of logical positivism in the 20th century.

So many modern philosophers end up in a middle position:

* empirical evidence is our most reliable access to the external world,

* but reasoning, logic, and conceptual analysis also play indispensable roles.

Your broader point still stands:

A philosophical argument may make belief in God *more plausible* to someone, but it rarely functions like a scientific proof. There is usually a substantial inferential gap between:

* “there is an unexplained ground of reality”

and

* “therefore a particular religious system is true.”

Maybe i shouldn't have said empiricism is the only way we can know anything but its the best or only reliable way of knowing anything

Chatgpt is happy to disprove that too.

That claim defeats itself unless it can be justified empirically.

The statement “empiricism is the only reliable way of knowing” is not itself established through observation, experiment, or sensory measurement. You cannot run a laboratory test proving that only empirical methods yield reliable knowledge. So the claim is either:

1. A non-empirical philosophical principle — which means non-empirical reasoning can produce reliable knowledge, contradicting the claim.

or

1. An empirical claim — but no finite set of observations can prove that all reliable knowledge must come from observation. That is a universal epistemological rule, not an empirical datum.

There are also several categories of knowledge that empiricism depends on but cannot itself justify:

1. Logic
2. Empirical science presupposes laws like non-contradiction and inference validity. Experiments do not prove logic; experiments already assume logic to interpret results.
3. Mathematics
4. Mathematical truths are not discovered by measuring the world repeatedly.
5. 2+2=4
6. No amount of sensory experience is needed to know this necessarily.
7. Induction itself
8. Empiricism relies on induction: the assumption that past regularities predict future outcomes. But this principle cannot be empirically proven without circularity. Any empirical defense of induction already assumes induction works.
9. Uniformity of nature
10. Science assumes reality behaves consistently across time and space. That assumption is not something empiricism can establish without presupposing it.
11. Conscious experience and other minds
12. You directly know your own consciousness prior to scientific measurement. Likewise, belief that other people have minds is an inference not strictly derivable from sensory data alone.

Even science itself is partly built on non-empirical reasoning:

1. hypothesis formation,
2. mathematical abstraction,
3. causal inference,
4. probabilistic reasoning,
5. interpretation of evidence.

Empirical data alone is just raw sensation. Reason is what turns observations into knowledge.

A stronger position would be:

“Empiricism is extremely effective for studying the physical world.”

That is defensible. But saying it is the only reliable path to knowledge overreaches, because empiricism rests on foundational principles that are themselves not empirically established.

I believe faith is important. But even to someone like me, the faith is still an extension of the empirical world

Ok if you dont like me saying empiricism is only reliable path how about saying its the most reliable path and any non empirical claims are still not evidence. They are only speculation

I will tell chatgpt to disprove your claim one more time, and I dont want to bother chatgpt anymore, so this is last time.

That claim defeats itself.

“Empiricism is the most reliable path” is not itself an empirical observation. You cannot measure, weigh, or experimentally observe the principle “only empirical evidence counts.” It is a philosophical claim about knowledge — meaning it relies on non-empirical reasoning to justify empiricism.

So the position already depends on something beyond empiricism.

There are several deeper problems too:

1. Logic is not empirical
2. The laws of logic are not discovered through the senses in the same way physical facts are.

For example:

1. If all humans are mortal
2. And Socrates is human
3. Then Socrates is mortal

The conclusion follows necessarily even before observation. The validity comes from rational structure, not laboratory testing.

Empirical science itself depends on:

1. logic,
2. mathematics,
3. inference,
4. causality,
5. identity,
6. induction.

None of those are empirically proven without circularity.

1. Empiricism cannot justify induction
2. Science assumes:
3. the future will resemble the past,
4. repeated observations reveal general laws.

But that assumption itself cannot be empirically proven without begging the question.

You would need to assume induction works in order to use past observations as evidence that induction works.

This is David Hume’s famous problem of induction.

So empiricism rests on a non-empirical foundation.

1. Mathematics gives genuine knowledge without observation
2. You do not need experiments to know:

2+2=4

or

genui{"math_block_widget_always_prefetch_v2":{"content":"a^2+b^2=c^2"}}

These are not “speculation.” They are necessary truths derived rationally.

Empirical observation may help apply mathematics, but mathematical truth itself is not established through sensory testing.

1. Empirical evidence already contains non-empirical interpretation
2. Raw sensory data does not interpret itself.

To move from:

1. “I observe regularity”

to:

1. “therefore there is a law”

requires reasoning beyond mere sensation.

Even scientific theories involve:

1. explanatory inference,
2. unobservable entities,
3. metaphysical assumptions,
4. probabilistic reasoning.

Atoms, fields, spacetime curvature, wavefunctions — these are not directly sensed. They are inferred.

If inference beyond direct observation were “mere speculation,” much of science would collapse.

1. Some truths are known conceptually, not experimentally
2. Examples:
3. “No bachelor is married.”
4. “A square has four sides.”
5. “Contradictions cannot both be true in the same sense.”

These are not scientific discoveries. Yet denying them destroys coherent reasoning itself.

1. “Non-empirical = speculation” is too broad
2. There is a difference between:
3. arbitrary imagination,
4. and
5. rational inference.

For example:

“If contingent things exist, there may be a necessary explanation” is not random fantasy. It is a philosophical inference from metaphysical premises.

You may reject the argument, but calling it “not evidence at all” ignores that rational deduction is a legitimate form of justification.

Science itself constantly uses inference to unobservables:

1. black holes before direct imaging,
2. quarks,
3. dark matter,
4. other minds,
5. historical events.

None are directly sensed in full. They are inferred from explanatory necessity.

So the real issue is not “empirical vs non-empirical,” but whether the reasoning is:

1. valid,
2. coherent,
3. explanatory,
4. non-contradictory.

Empiricism is extremely powerful for studying the physical world. But the claim that only empirical evidence counts is philosophically self-undermining, because that claim itself is not empirically established.

It's simple.

An idea that cannot proven will consequently become an idea that cannot be disproven...Empirical evidence or not.

Fact is, that 6 people have commented on this thread and none of us have a clue why creation and existence should have occurred.

As for Gods...Well Gods are a thinking primate thing.

Since when was God defined by your standard of "empirical existence"

Are you a Deist? Yes or no?

Fact is, that 6 people have commented on this thread and none of us have a clue why creation and existence should have occurred.

thank you Serge. Naught is created nor destroyed, only transformed, eternally. Simple.

<....................................space.................@......................space............................................. >

@ symbolizes the eternally existent, dynamic, finite, occupied space Universe

Woo Woo, Bubbly Boo, Ive created a another local universe from nothingness, not doo doo. Sounds like something from the old Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon show with Mr Wizard

Wiki...' The Magic Words: To grant Tooter's wishes, Mr. Wizard casts a spell by reciting the famous incantation: "Drizzle, Drazzle, Druzzle, Drome, time for this one to come home."

The Lesson: Things always go wrong for Tooter in his new roles, prompting him to call out for Mr. Wizard to save him. Mr. Wizard would then rescue him and deliver his signature moral lesson: "Be just what you is, not what you is not." ...

Hmmm, Sheldon Cooper (both as a child in Young Sheldon and an adult in The Big Bang Theory) is a staunch atheist who relies on science and logic. Despite his deeply religious mother, Mary, Sheldon often challenges traditional faith by pointing out the mathematical precision of the universe.

Not that one can precisely pinpoint the extent of the universe.

Whereas logic alone tells us that thinking primate invented thinking super-primate and that a GOD doesn't reside anywhere close.

Hmmm, https://www.yahoo.com/fp/news/us/articles/vowed-love-other-forever-few-103009359.html

That is why the Bible remains the best source for proof of God’s existence.

In so much as a European book of the second millennium, proves absolutely zilch other than itself as a rehash of earlier mythology.

Not to say that super-intelligent intervention isn't a feasible hypothesis, but old men in sandals up mountains several thousand years ago were no scientists...More likely to have been off their heads on some popular Middle Eastern shamanistic hallucinogen.

Christianity buried a lot of European mythology when Europe adopted Christianity.