Science is built on a number of philosophical presuppositions that derive their strength from their tenability within philosophy itself rather than science(because that would be illogical) such as the intuition that the universe has laws. This belief in and of itself is paramount to the scientific endeavor, Yet is not in and of itself scientific, Since it cannot be scientifically tested because if the universe did not have laws it would be illogical to try to determine this using tests which, By nature, Rely on the laws of the universe. Thus, Science can at most be considered a branch of philosophy that encompasses the study of corporeal realities and possibilities as is evident in its original title of "natural philosophy". As such, If science is confined to corporeal realities, It cannot claim to touch supernatural ones. Philosophy, On the other hand, Uses all possible avenues and categories of knowledge to pursue truth. Thus, That supernatural or incorporeal things outside of the universe may exist and intersect with the universe is a topic for which philosophy, Seemingly by very category of existence, Has a nearly sole right to. I believe that in order to be a good scientist, One must also be a good philosopher. As a prospective scientist, I also seek to get a good grasp on the philosophical underpinnings of science and the ways things may be known outside of science.
The gap between our knowledge of physical world aka science. . And the knowledge required to conclude the existence of a higher power is way too big. . . Therefore we can't use a physical evidence or a math equation. . So if we are going to figure this out we need to use logic and ask questions like why we are here and what is our purpose of life
Yeah I'd guess so because science is based on things that have evidence made in the here and now by experiments that they test. Higher powers are a faith thing which is where they want people to beleive without being forced to. Philosophy is the study of wisdom and science is the study of knowledge.
Science is what we know about the world and universe we live in. The science of religion is theoretical in nearly all cases (past the psychological aspects) and can therefore only be debated efficiently when using philosophy. Philosophy also gives intelligent yet uneducated debaters a chance, As they would be able to use nothing more than their own mind to debate an equally intelligent yet more educated debater.
The Science of Religion. Is when Philosophy becomes Science.
Jesus Said: Follow Me to be Light (eternal life) not Matter simply changing from in Spin cycles.
Science says: Matter (simply changes form) is Slow/Gross Materialized Energy (that cannot be Create or Destroyed).
Who can ADD or Subtract 1 CUBIT of Energy to the Universe?
Science deals with facts and philosophy deals with big questions by just thinking. Not saying there can't be a god but he/she has to be proven to exist. Science shows that the universe most likely had the big bang. Due to philosophy not having any proof that stuff exists a god might not exist.
Religion < Philosophy < Science
Welcome to the 2020.
I never believed in the bible. But Science always interests me. Philosophy is gay. But I believe in God. And I found it through science, Not some gay ass retarded book. But that's just me. If you like this dumb book, Go ahead, Read it. There are some good things in it. Mostly fairy tales from 2000 years ago. But if you find meaning in the terms, Nice for you.
Using philosophy to debate the existence of God is like using ghosts to debate the existence of aliens. Philosophy allows philosophers to create non-falsifiable arguments for their arguments. "What does this all mean? " "Who am I? " "If the Unicorn was ridden by the Leprechaun, Wouldn't gold fall out of his pockets? " It is only by using the real, The natural, And the reasonable that we can debate religion, Or anything really, In order to find truth. Using my unicorn analogy: I would have to first prove that unicorns and leprechauns exist before I make an argument using them. It's hard, Or I would say non-sensible to argue philosophies. It's hard to debate something that is subjective and non-falsifiable.