That just is, BilliardsBall.
The question become - Where are the evidences for this "Creator"?
Saying you believing in the Creator, God or Designer, or whatever what you want to call it, is fine IF you are only concern with religious belief (and personal faith), AND IF your Creationism was strictly theology.
BUT no, it is not the case. You are trying to mix your belief with science, and you are trying to say your view is fact.
Well, science don't work that way.
Science, and I mean real science, not the "theoretical" science - no, I am talking about the
"experimental" science.
Experimental science required the
scientific theory to be:
- falsifiable, which is the ability to refute any statement within a theory - meaning the theory is testable, verifiable, measurable, in another word, observable;
- and the only way to "test" a theory if it is "falsifiable", is to use Scientific Method.
Scientific Method is a methodology and a tool, and a guideline of how to proceed from idea (formulated into hypothesis) to testing that idea, to coming to conclusion based on the test results.
And the tests or experiments must be repeatable, and rigorous.
The whole point to Scientific Method is to
test the statements - the explanation and predictions - in the hypothesis or theory. The tests are the evidences that will either (A) REFUTE the statements, or (B) VERIFY the statements as being "true".
There is a 3rd option (C), where the tests don't yield conclusive results.
Only B can be accepted as probably true, and go through the next stage of the Scientific Method - Peer Review.
The tests that resulted in A or C get rejected, and the hypothesis should be ditched, and shouldn't be submitted to peer review.
Science, meaning experimental science, required falsification and evidences.
Theoretical science, like theoretical physics in superstring theory, M-theory, multiverse, and others like it, rely on
proofs, not evidences.
Proof, in science, is finding solutions through logical statements, namely the mathematical equations. These equations (proofs) are often very complex, and difficult to solve.
Now, just about every science, including experimental science, have mathematical equations and formulas, but the final answer to experimental science come from evidences, not proof.
Theoretical science is different, in that it relied only on the equations, not the evidences.
Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, the Big Bang theory, all started out being theoretical physics, until they became testable, or the discovery of evidences.
With the Big Bang (known back then in 1920s to late 40s, as "expanding universe model" or "inflationary model"), Howard Percy Robertson predicted in 1925 that galaxies are moving away from each other, would show that the universe is expanding, is determined through "redshift" of the objects (eg galaxies). His prediction was discovered in 1929, by Edwin Hubble. The expanding universe model went from theoretical to experimental (empirical).
But one evidence is not enough to validate Big Bang hypothesis into a full-blown scientific theory.
In 1948, a group of scientists - Gamow, Alpher and Herman, would make the biggest contribution to the Big Bang since the pioneers' works of 1920s (Friedmann, Robertson and Lemaître).
George Gamow with his former student Ralph Alpher came up with concept of the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN). While Alpher with Robert Herman predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR).
That was all theoretical, until 1964, when Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson accidentally discovered CMBR through radio telescope at Bell Laboratory.
Parts of the Big Bang are verifiable, therefore observable, but other parts of BB, the earlier epochs (pre-Recombination, like the Planck epoch, Inflationary Epoch, Hadron epoch), are still theoretical. The Big Bang model is an ongoing process; we are still learning, still awaiting for discovery.
Since the earliest age of universe is still unknown, other scientists, theoretical physicists have been coming up with alternative cosmology, like the Oscillating Cosmology Model (Big Bounce), Multiverse model, etc.
To me, experimental science is real-world observation, while theoretical science is merely representation of the real world, like a simulation.
Your Creationism, the belief in the eternal universe along with pre-existing Creator, are neither experimental/empirical (not falsifiable and not testable), nor it is theoretical (no equation, no proof), then this eternal universe-pre-existing Creator combo is nothing more than pseudoscience.
You cannot observe, detect, measure or test this pre-existing Creator of yours, which is essentially your linchpin to your eternal universe. Without direct evidences to this Creator, your claim that the eternal universe to be fact, falls apart.
Even if you left out the creator in your claim, the eternal universe is still pseudoscience and unsubstantiated speculation, because you have no observable or testable evidences.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion or belief, BilliardsBall, but those opinions are not fact, unless you have evidences. You don't even have mathematical equations, so they are not theoretical too.
Again with the straw man.
I have never brought up infinite regression in my life, and I don't advocate it.
You are the one who keep bringing up infinite regression, whenever I disagreed with your unsubstantiated claim.
How about you actually read what I am saying, instead of spewing up these dishonest straw man.
I have only accepted what have been observed or discovered. Everything that are still theoretical, I haven't accepted, yet.
Like I said before, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Big Bang all started out being "theoretical", but once the first few pieces of evidence started coming in, it is no longer purely theoretical.
I am patient, and would be willing to wait for next evidence. And I don't accept anything to be true, unless we can verify it (hence the evidences and tests).
