The philosophical method is superior to the empirical method because the only thing the empirical method can say is, “It is perceived there is no God, so there is no God.â€? The empirical method can go no farther than that.  The philosophical method will never get an absolute answer either, but its theory will be much more complete and reasonable than the one provided by the empirical method.

Oh?  Theo, you have a lot of faith in the philosophical method, whatever you mean by that.  IMHO, philosophy that is not grounded in empiricism is like religion: just a lot of words merrily chasing their tails.  It might be logically consistent, it might even be great art, but there’s no reason to believe that it will enlighten us about the real world beyond words.  A “philosophical” demonstration of the necessity for God, or a Supreme Toaster, is no more likely to be true than your fortune as revealed by a bathtub ring.  The great bulk of nonscientific philosophy is simply bunk.

What philosophy, in the right hands, can and does do, is to help explain and straighten out science- many scientists can think illogically too.  A good example of a modern philosopher who does this is Daniel Dennett.

Theo,

What you’re discussing is Kant’s categories, which really are a reiteration of Aristotlean metaphysics.  Moreover, it was Kant in the Critique of Pure Reason that suggests that religious claims are not under the purview of philosophy but instead should be grounded by empirical claims.  Kant, despite being quite religious himself was influenced by figures such as Hobbes and Hume who were both atheists.

If you assert that the pursuit of the supernatural is folly then you are claiming to have an answer.

Never said the questioning is folly.  Just much of the claims.  Just b/c one calls bullshit, does not mean that one MUST have the answer. 

This is the problem though.  You are still using math to explain math.  Tell me how, in a theoretical or philosophical sense, you can go from a math equation asserting something to a theory asserting something illogical.

You asked how something came from an equation.  Using math (and following its rules), you can derive other equations that may describe seemingly illogical phenomenom.  Hence, experiments are done, and in this case time dilation was proven experimentally.

“During October, 1971, four cesium atomic beam clocks were flown on regularly scheduled commercial jet flights around the world twice, once eastward and once westward, to test Einstein’s theory of relativity with macroscopic clocks. From the actual flight paths of each trip, the theory predicted that the flying clocks, compared with reference clocks at the U.S. Naval Observatory, should have lost 40+/-23 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and should have gained 275+/-21 nanoseconds during the westward trip ... Relative to the atomic time scale of the U.S. Naval Observatory, the flying clocks lost 59+/-10 nanoseconds during the eastward trip and gained 273+/-7 nanosecond during the westward trip, where the errors are the corresponding standard deviations. These results provide an unambiguous empirical resolution of the famous clock “paradox” with macroscopic clocks.”

In my Calc III and Physics classes right now, I see a lot of equations that describe more mundane phenomenon, like electricity and gradients.  What I find geekly curious is that in calculus, I see similar (if not the same) equations and theorems that describe several things.  It makes me wonder whether the equations were found first (as it seems to in multivariable calc), or the phenomenon observed first (as with much of the electrical world) and equations determined later.

Theocrat says…
This is the problem though.  You are still using math to explain math.  Tell me how, in a theoretical or philosophical sense, you can go from a math equation asserting something to a theory asserting something illogical.

You hold the concept of time dilation “illogical” because YOU can’t seem to wrap your head around it, but it isn’t actually illogical. The mathematic formulas that you refer to so derisively show the logic behind the concept, and experimental evidence shows that that logic is sound.

And yet you would go from a philosophical postulation asserting something to a theory asserting something illogical:

The philosophical method is superior to the empirical method because the only thing the empirical method can say is, “It is perceived there is no God, so there is no God.â€? The empirical method can go no farther than that.  The philosophical method will never get an absolute answer either, but its theory will be much more complete and reasonable than the one provided by the empirical method.

Ask yourself, if you didn’t assume the existence of God, would you find it at all problematic that the empirical method “can go no farther” than asserting that we shouldn’t believe in things until we have some logical reason to (which, you should note, is different than positively asserting that such things are an impossiblity)? Would you find the philosophical method (whatever that is) more “complete and reasonable” if it asserted things that didn’t gel with your preconceived notions? If tomorrow it was determined using the philosophical method that Marduk was the true ruler of the Universe, and humans were created as his pawns, would you adjust your worldview accordingly? What if the philosophical method determined that we are all the ghosts of ancient aliens? What if the philosophical method determined that there is absolutely no possibility whatsoever of any God existing (a far more complete theory than science could ever assert.) Is there anything whatsoever that could force you to discard your current theological/philosophical beliefs in favor of drastically different ones? Remember, if you answer yes, then you lack faith; if you answer no, then you don’t actually subscribe to any intellectually honest methodology.

zilch:
The great bulk of nonscientific philosophy is simply bunk.

What is your opinion of the existentialists(Sartre, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, etc.), the Social Critics(Adorno, Marcuse, etc.), and Sellars and Wittgenstein?  I’ll grant you I think the deconstructionists and feminists made terrible philosophies, but I am becoming increasingly more a fan of the existentialists.

Ulfrekr:
Would you find the philosophical method (whatever that is) more “complete and reasonable� if it asserted things that didn’t gel with your preconceived notions?

Do you think every atheist philosopher is a materialist/empiricist/reductionist?  They would take my side on this, too.  The philosophical method can not determine absolutes like you describe.  It’s value lies in checking to make sure science isn’t folding on itself and that science cannot assert anymore than it is allowed.  Science needs to keep to science and each profession to itself, but it is the critical thinking of the philosopher that makes him the self-appointed judge of thought transcending all professions.  What profession can do anything of value without critical thinking?  The philosopher judges the value of all critical thoughts posed in a profession so that knowledge is consistent.

Dear frends

happy to get in touch with you i request to accept us to join with your organasation am interested with your program and teachings.
with love
ralph ondari

Ralph, not sure what the hell you’re asking to join.