Accepted, but the point is that adairetron8 has defined the question as an epistemological one. That by definition renders all observable evidence moot, because the central question becomes whether or not we can trust observation.
The universe could have been created fifteen minutes ago and all the evidence and our memories planted by unknown parties for unknown reasons. I might actually be a twenty-seven-foot mutant space squid circling the Antares Nebula who has been zapped into thinking he's a five-foot-four male human sitting in a cheap knock-off of an Aeron chair.
You might actually be Angelina Jolie and I might actually be Brad Pitt. So, are you doing anything later?
The short answer is that our senses are the only means we have to comprehend the universe, and the scientific method is the best available method to synthesize those observations, explain past events and predict future events. It does not, and cannot, explain anything to a point of metaphysical certitude. But if I had to guess whether or not the sun would peek over the eastern horizon of my little sliver of Earth tomorrow morning, I know which way I'd bet.
Interesting response. Then, we have to go with what we know based on our five senses (six in some), discernment what is God given, and have faith that what we experience on our own 4 dimensional capability. God has 9-11 dimensions that we can't even conceive of. Someone with a sixth sense is like a God to the average person.
We were created in the image of God, (our spirit), without the other dimensions what are out there. Basically, what we see is what we get. It's actually very simple.
To actually dive deep into philosophy is like jumping into a dense jungle without the stars, compass, or map. We have the stars and moon at night, the sun in day and thank God for Science a map and compass......:)
Angelina is something wouldn't you say.....
but since you mentioned it....Happy New Year
http://www.crazyclip.ws/movie/889455.html
http://www.crazyclip.ws/movie/870836.html
Tom