"philosophical evidence" and "theological evidence"???

Oxymorons both.

Perhaps when you understand what science and evidence is we can interact again.

Have a good evening.

Essence is what something is. The concept that is concretely instantiated in its existence.

This is backwards though. We see things and we abstract concepts. There isn't a collection of concepts waiting to beinstantiated.

Of course it's not a product of imagination. But that doesn't mean it's universal. Some things are created; some aren't. What's unsupportable - philosophically as well as scientifically is seeing teleology where it's not warranted.

If teleology has been eliminated then I know a lot of archaeologist who need to find another line of work. :-)

Tell that to my biologist friend! He keeps insisting that teleology is a figment of my imagination. :-)

If teleology has been eliminated then I know a lot of archaeologist who need to find another line of work. :-)

And what your describing sounds like description. A thing is what it is.

I meant to say that purpose is amenable to scientific analysis

??? really? Unless we are defining "purpose" differently, I am speaking of teleology, which as I understand it has been methodologically eliminated from scientific analysis.

Essence is what something is. The concept that is concretely instantiated in its existence. Although that probably won't be much clearer. :-)

I'm sorry, my spell-checker caught my post. I meant to say that purpose is amenable to scientific analysis: metaphysics strikes as the worst possible way to approach purpose.
And in sorry, I'm still not clear what you mean by essence.

Purpose is exam unable

Well, through metaphysics it is.

What do you mean by essence? And how is that a "why" question?

Essence is the identity of something. That, by virtue of which it is what it is. It is a "why" question because it is dependent upon Existence.

Purpose is exam unable. What do you mean by essence? And how is that a "why" question?

Questions of essence and purpose.