Quote:
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
You used a lot of words to say “I don’t know.” Maybe to sow confusion about the simple question I asked you to address?
|
I pointed out in my second post that I agreed with Michio Kaku. "Science is based on testable, reproducible evidence, and so far we cannot test the universe before the Big Bang."
I also pointed out that there is a big difference between between devising possible answers based on deductive reasoning from what evidence does exist, and simply deriving answers based on imagination.
REPEATEDLY.
You seem determined to read what you want to read.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Iwasmadenew
The point I was making is that you think the energy from a gravitational collapse (of any kind) might have caused our Big Bang. Your claim assumes that something existed PRIOR to our Big Bang that ‘collapsed.'
|
What is directly observed is an unbroken chain of cause and event that leads back to the big bang. Which is like a door that is currently closed to us. We don't have any direct knowledge of what lies on the other side, but all experience with cause and effect leaves us no reason not to suppose that the big bang was not an event predicated on a cause, just as is everything else that we can observe. WE can postulate various possibilities based on the evidence which we have at hand, that which is directly
observed, or we can simply make stuff up directly from our imaginations and
declare an answer. The first method is referred to as the empirical method.
Wikipedia
Empirical evidence
Empirical evidence is the information received by means of the senses, particularly by observation and documentation of patterns and behavior through experimentation.[1] The term comes from the Greek word for experience, ἐμπειρία (empeiría).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence
The other method is to imagine an answer that appears to conform to the question, and to then declare the question answered.
Which method seems to offer the best possibility for reaching a potentially realistic conclusion? Which method has led to the working computer you are sitting at?
The laws of physics represent the highest state of confidence that we have attained in understanding the universe we live in. The laws of physics are derived from much observation and experimentation resulting in achieving exactly the same result repeatedly and without fail. The application of these laws have led to working computers, smart phone and all of the other technological marvels of our rapidly changing technological world. If the laws of physics are
NOT inviolate, as we now believe them to be, we are in the embarrassing position of having no idea why our technology works at all!
Ancient people worked on a different theory of how the universe works. Since they did not yet possess enough technology to acquire the information needed to explain the natural phenomenon going on around them, wind, rain, earthquakes and the like, they made up answers. They presupposed solutions for which they otherwise had no means to answer. Do you notice no difference between careful observation and experimentation which leads directly to working technology, and presupposing solutions based entirely on assumptions?
Presupposition is simply another word for make believe, you see. If you presuppose that humans, and the universe we exist in, must have been created by an infinitely powerful Being whom you not only presuppose exists, but whom you presuppose exists without the need for such a creation Himself, you have constructed an answer derived entirely from the imagination.
You made it all up, which is, as I have just pointed out, what presupposition is all about. There is another way of looking at the universe however. It's called the empirical method, and it involves investigating the physical evidence for what the physical evidence has to tell us. The empirical method entails close observation, much experimentation and direct experience, resulting in detailed conclusions that allow for the same results to be reached repeatedly. It requires that the results, when discovered, be accepted at face value even to the extent of completely abandoning centuries of make believe. This sort of research has also led us rather inextricably to the conclusion that EVERYTHING THAT OCCURS DOES SO FOR NATURAL REASONS which can be understood and even utilized for our advantage. The general term for this deeper understanding of the basis for how the physical universe operates is called quantum mechanics. Does the empirical method have credibility? Well, does that computer you are sitting at actually work? Do we have operating smart phones and all of the other modern technological marvels of this modern technological age? They are all based on an working understanding of quantum mechanics. They were NOT rendered extant by make believe.
On the other hand, what is the record that has been established by make believe? A 2,000 year old claim that has a 2,000 year old unbroken record of being an
EMPTY PROMISE!
So, where were all of these modern marvels in Jesus' time? The laws of quantum physics are exactly the same today as they were 2,000 years ago... or a billion years ago for that matter. However, by in large the ancients used a different method for reaching conclusions then the empirical method. They presupposed! What ancient peoples did not understand they simply made up reasons for. Gods and goddesses, elves, fairies, and the like who cause the wind to blow, and the rain to fall. Whatever served to answer questions for which no obvious answer was readily at hand. This was the old
"make it up and declare it to be true" method of reaching a conclusion. It really had no practical value, other than to create the illusion of providing an answer, even though that answer had no connection to anything valid and true. Sadly, many people today still operate this way, applying made up solutions to questions they don't otherwise understand. Which is a shame, because the actual answers are most often readily available now, so make believe is no longer necessary. We have learned, through much trial and error, that the empirical method for accumulating genuine knowledge far surpasses the old
"make it up and declare it to be true" presupposition method. So, I don't "presuppose" that there is no deity. I simply see no point in arbitrarily making up the existence of an invisible Being with infinite powers where no such Being is obvious. In fact, the existence of an infinitely powerful invisible Being that possesses the power to manipulate the laws of physics at will contradicts everything we believe that we know about how the universe works. This is the inevitable face off between make believe and knowledge you see. Which do you suppose will win out over time?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
but the fact is that if we are cautious with the details it is because we have learned to hedge anything we say around with caveats to prevent the theist side from misrepresenting it. So don't blame us.
