Then why wouldn't Philosophy include Theology? I maintain that my beliefs in scripture are the result of things that I have directly perceived, whether answered prayer, the sensation of God's presence, fulfilled prophecy, testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, etc. All are evidences in support of the existence of God and in the inspiration of scripture.
My immediate answer would be that these are all evidence to you, because you already believe in God, prayer, and the validity of God's Word. For those who do not believe in any of these, the events you undrstand are an answers to prayer they would see as a perfectly natural events, which they would be (unless ithey were genuine miracles). As for the testimonies of those who witnessed miracles, they would be no more convinced by those than the testimony of those who have been abducted by UFOs. I admit that fulfilled prophecy ought to give even the most hardened skeptic pause, but, from their point of view, since both the prophecies and the fullfillments, for the most part, are recorded in the same Book, which they do not regard has having any more authority than any other book, the fullfillments are not very convincing.
Now this is just what we ought to expect, if the Scriptures are true. It plainly says, "But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14) We should not expect the unregenerate to see evidence of God or the supernatural (eternal) in natural events.
(I will get back to one other point you alluded to about feeling God's presence in a moment.)
First, I want to make clear what I mean about my view on the separation of Philosophy and Theology. I regard philosophy a genuine intellectual discipline, like any of the sciences, or history. The subject matter of philosophy can be very well defined (as I believe the original article in this post accomplished), and the pursuit of genuine knowledge in all those areas must be purely objective, just as it must in the sciences.
Now this is the most important point I have to make. There can be no disagreement between a correct philosophy and a correct theology, just as there can be no disagreement between a correct chemistry and a correct theology, or a correct astronomy and a correct theology. There can be no dissagreements in truth, no contradictions, and no paradoxes.
Philosophy deals with the "natural" perceived world, Theology deals with that which philosophy cannot deal with, that is the "revealed" world of the supernatural. Now there is a natural interface between philosophy and theology at both ends of philosophy, that is, at the metaphysical end, in ontology, which ultimately must describe existense in terms of the most simple or essential of qualities. The question is, what do the simplest or most essential qualities qualify? Philosophy cannot answer that question.
At the other end is human rational/volitional consciousness, which, while conscious of material existense, cannot itself be material existense, and, being rational/volitional, is not constrained by any of the qualities which describe natural (spatial/temporal/determinate) material existense.
(Interestingly, the atheistic philosopher/writer, Ayn Rand, was aware of both these problems and frankly stated, not as a wish, but to point out the nature of the problem, she could almost wish there were a God, because that would solve the problems. The exact statement is recorded, but is not in any of her regularly published works.)
Now, I have written too much but want to mention this idea of "feeling" God. I do not want to discourage you, and first want to assure you there are genuine feelings we ought to experience in our relationships with God. But, I must point out that God is not palpable, and the whole idea of basing anything on our feelings (which are always and only reactions or responses, and never cognitive or revelatory) can be very dangerous.
If God could be "felt" everyone would be able to feel Him, as Luke points out (recording Paul's address at Mar's hill):
Ac 17:26-28 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being....
...because He is not closer to us than anyone else, because we all "live, and move, and have our being," in Him.
The problem with relying on feeling for any view, choice, or conviction, is in themselves, feelings provide no information, such as, about their cause, or even their significance or importance. There is no way from feelings along to determine whether they are being cause by indigestion, the devil, or by our spiritual relatioship with God.
Enough!
Hank
Ok, then for the sake of the skeptics and the unbelievers who won't accept the evidences I would offer nor obtain their own by seeking Him, I'll agree that perhaps Philosophy should be viewed as separated from Theology.
But then that brings us back to the question of "Philosophy what is it?". We've just removed from philosophy most of what I would identify as the most important information. That of who we are, what our purpose is, what kind of people we ought to be, who we answer to, the very meaning of life.
The word "foundationless" comes to mind. "Adrift", also. Can I trust anything that philosophy might conclude? Frankly, I'm not sure. It would seem to me, that the conclusions that one could reach with such a philosophy might be very limited.
Or worse, philosophy might be totally self centered. It seems like so called "rational" philosophy would invariably seek out self centeredness.
Perhaps that's what you mean when you say: The question is, what do the simplest or most essential qualities qualify? Philosophy cannot answer that question.
Finally, If God could be "felt" everyone would be able to feel Him, as Luke points out (recording Paul's address at Mar's hill):
Feeling or sensing the presense of God is not unlike "hearing" Him. One doesn't normally audibly hear God, yet the sensation is very much like hearing. In John 10 Jesus effectively said that his sheep know His voice. So it's not that everyone doesn't hear Him or feel Him, they do. They don't recognize him.
But for me, both feeling and hearing Him are among the many evidences. Not a feeling in the sense of an emotion, but a sensation like one of the five senses. That is an evidence as far as I'm concerned, but not one I can submit to peer review.