1/2. Do you believe energy/matter has always existed?
I have no idea and neither do you.
1A. Do you believe it existed within vacuum fluxes in a timeless, spaceless, matterless, void before a big bang?
You don't understand the big bang theory. If you did you'd understand that "before" the big bang is a nonsensical statement as "before"is a function of time and time did not exist until the big bang. You'd also know that space and matter were not "created" by the big bang, the big bang marks the beginning of their expansion.
1A-A/2A. Can energy/matter create itself?
I have no idea and neither do you.
1/2A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it does still today)
Well, if I don't know something, then I can't know it. If you knew, you wouldn't be asking me.
It is scientifically believed that energy (and matter) can't be created or destroyed, henceforth law of conservation of energy.
It has also been scientifically demonstrated.
For something to be labeled as science, it should be able to be observed, tested, and then repeated.
Since it's seemingly impossible to be able to observe whether something is eternal or not, (since you're not eternal you can't observe it) which means it's seemingly impossible to be able to test whether it's eternal or not since you can't observe it, which definitely means you can't repeat it if you've never tested it.
Perform an experiment where a reaction takes place that destroys matter and or energy. Then book a flight to Sweden to collect your Nobel Prize.
So it seems there are two possibilities: either the empirical data we have showing that energy is always conserved in actions and reactions can be logically extrapolated out to conclude that energy cannot be created or destroyed....or there exists some mysterious "source" for all the energy in the universe. If you posit the existence of this source, i'd like to see (as i'm sure the Nobel Prize committee would as well) "100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof" of it.
3. Do you believe a mass of matter and energy rotated until it exploded?
I have no idea and neither do you.
3A. Did that mass of energy and matter create itself?
I have no idea and neither do you.
3A-A. Do you believe that all matter and energy in the Universe was created by a Big Bang 14 billion years ago?
No because that's not what the big bang theory states. The big bang states that the universe existed as a hot, dense singularity that started to expand 14 billion years ago.
3A-B. Were you or anyone existing today, existing at that point to observe this occurrence?
No. But I wasn't around (and neither was anyone alive today) when Christopher Columbus landed in the Bahamas in 1492...but I have a pretty good idea that it happened. I wasn't around (and neither was anyone alive today) when dogs were domesticated, but i'm pretty sure that it happened as well. I don't have to personally observe something (nor do I require an eyewitness) to conclude that it happened. All I need is to examine the available evidence and draw a conclusion from that based on what we know about how stuff works.
3A-C. If you didnt exist to observe it, how can you test it today?
Examine the available evidence and extrapolate based on what is known about how the universe behaves.
And wouldn't your tests be based on the assumption that it happened since no one was there to observe it?
All human knowledge is based on the assumption that we can know things.
3B. Can you repeat an occurrence that no one has observed?
No, but we can re-create what we think may have happened based on the evidence we have. We can also predict what we will find if the theory is valid.
3B-B. If you do attempt to repeat it, wouldnt the outcome be based on the assumption that it happened like you thought it did?
No, it will be based on what the experimentation data shows. What I think about it is irrelevant. That's how science works.
3B-C. How not? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof on how it wouldnt be)
Because evidence trumps everything. That's how science works.
4. If I work to solve a math problem, and I start solving it at the middle of the equation will the outcome be an assumption based on the fact that I skipped half the equation?
No, your outcome will be wrong.
4A. If I started watching a movie half way through, will I truly understand the outcome since I missed the beginning the movie?
Depends on the movie. If I walk in halfway through a porno, i'm pretty sure I know what's going on.
Do you see that the ending is contingent upon the beginning and the beginning on the end? If you don't have the beginning the end result will be an assumption, which cannot be regarded as science, but religion.
Wrong. You are assuming that all assumptions are created equal and they are not. Scientific assumptions are based on evidenciary support and extrapolations based on what is known about how the universe behaves. Furthermore, they are always subject to change in light of new information.
Religious assumptions are based on the untestable testimony of people who claim to have interacted with a supernatural entity (or multiple entities). They are not subject to change in light of new information.
I assume there's an intelligent designer because I can't prove 100% that there is one. I believe theres one however.
On what do you base that assumption? Do you base it on "100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical proof" or do you base it on the testimony of someone else? If the answer is the latter, what makes that person reliable? Why should we believe them?
5. Since the beginning of your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science, how do you expect people to think it's not a religious belief, and why don't you think it's a religious belief since your theory can't be proven, nor is it a part of science
Because at no point does science allow for supernatural magic to suffice as an explanation for something it cannot explain due to lack of information.
Because scientific theories allow for change in the face of new information.
Because "science works, bitches." If it didn't, you'd pray yourself an antibiotic instead of getting the doctor to prescribe one.
For any of the previous or following questions, if you're going to fill in the gap by saying we don't have the answer now but we will in the future, answer me these questions.
6. Isn't that just the same as saying "god did it?"
No. Saying that you don't know something because you don't have enough evidence at the time is nowhere near the same as assuming that "god did it." Saying "We don't know who killed John F Kennedy but we will with enough evidence," is not the same as saying "Castro did it!" One is an assumption based on prior experience (evidence has helped crack all kinds of murder cases before, no reason to assume that this murder is different), and one is a positive claim that immediately demands evidenciary support.
You're not answering the question, nor are you admitting you don't know the answer, you're simply filling in your ignorance by giving an unreliable answer based on an assumption.
No, i'm giving an honest answer as opposed to a dishonest one. To admit that we don't have enough information to make a determination one way or another is a fundamentally honest assumption based on prior experience. To say "_____ did it" without anything other than "_______ said so" is fundamentally dishonest because you are making a claim to positive knowledge that you yourself admitted that you don't have.
6A. Can you predict the future?
I can make general predictions about the future based on prior knowledge. The sun will, in all likelihood, go down tonight. A restaurant worker will, in all likelihood, serve someone a bowl of soup sometime in the next 6 months. A bear will, in all likelihood, poop in the woods today. If such predictions were not possible, science wouldn't work, and it does. Now, I cannot make specific predictions about what will happen, when and where. If I could, i'd be a lot wealthier.
6A-A Does predicting the future based on assumptions contradict the humanistic view?
It depends on what those assumptions are based on. If those assumptions are based on prior knowledge and accurate data, then no. If they are based on Madame Helga's tarot reading skills, then yes.
If you believe that what you experience through your 5 senses are the only things that exist, how can you try to predict the future since you can't see into the future?
6A-B. How so? (Give 100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical, proof on how it doesn't, and how you can)
No one (credible) is claiming to be able to see into the future. But if we were not able to make predictions based on accurate data and prior knowledge, then science wouldn't work. There'd be no new medicines, technologies or inventions. We wouldn't be able to keep track of time because the sun could just as easily not come up as come up.
If I say what I believe is an assumption, nothing changes,
Only if you assume that all assumptions are created equal, which they aren't. If I assume that my car won't start because the battery needs replacing, that is not the same as assuming my car won't start because it's haunted.
I believe in the designer of the bible, and every word of the gospels of Christ.
Why do you believe in these things? Can you provide "100%, infallible, non-opinionated, empirical, proof" to support your belief?
I believe the bible for its valid history that even concurs even with secular history,
Captain America comic books contain "valid history that even concurs even with secular history," are they reliable as well?
for the fulfilled prophesies, and also for the stories and knowledge of this book.
Science Fiction works have made "fulfilled prophecies." Jules Verne predicted manned moon missions in 1873. Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek depicted hand-held communication devices with video and computer capabilities in the late 1960s. They have also told stories with great moral lessons and such. Are they reliable for the same reason?
If science claims their findings are assumptions it wouldn't have scientific data anymore, it would have assumptiontific data.
Wow. Just, wow.
All human knowledge is based on the assumption that humans can know things. The question is not "what is an assumption and what is known?" The question is "on what are we basing our assumptions?"
7. If you had to show me one empirically, 100%, factual, non-opinionated, proof for evolution, show it with absolute solid, unarguable, infallible proof now.
No comments:
Post a Comment