Science, the Universe, and Ex Nihilo

[mikkel_the_dane]

Because that is the best response to that question.

Yeah, but then you have to explain best response. Remember how you do skepticism in practice. Just ask "how do you know that?" and continue until you get what is going on and you can't explain more. That is called methodological skepticism and is connected to science.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

But that doesn't tell us if there is no time prior to the universe. It just tell us that we can't think about it. That test is in brain as mathematics and not observable. So to me it is speculation to claim we know anything about not being universe, because to me it appears that we can only test within the universe.

My understanding of time is that it represents a rate of change. No change, no time. I suspect that in the case of the Universe, there was something, but we are only at the speculation point. I like the idea that the instaton that expanded into our Universe is the other end of a black hole, but that is still very speculative.

 

[KWED]

Yeah, but then you have to explain best response. Remember how you do skepticism in practice. Just ask "how do you know that?" and continue until you get what is going on and you can't explain more. That is called methodological skepticism and is connected to science.

"Science" does not "believe" anything. The question itself is incoherent. Therefore the best response to "does something happen that does not happen", is "no".

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Science" does not "believe" anything. The question itself is incoherent. Therefore the best response to "does something happen that does not happen", is "no".

Well, science is based on axiomatic assumptions, which are without evidence, proof, truth or rational justification. So some people believe in these axiomatic assumptions and other don't.

 

[KWED]

Well, science is based on axiomatic assumptions, which are without evidence, proof, truth or rational justification.

Such as?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Such as?

Here is one version:
Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd.

We can find others.

 

[KWED]

Here is one version:
Naturalism presumes that nature is in principle completely knowable. There is in nature a regularity, unity, and wholeness that implies objective laws, without which the pursuit of scientific knowledge would be absurd.

That is the description of a philosophical position, not of science.

However, could you point out which part of that is irrational or unreasonable?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That is the description of a philosophical position, not of science.

However, could you point out which part of that is irrational or unreasonable?

That it is without evidence, proof, truth or logic.

 

[KWED]

That it is without evidence, proof, truth or logic.

No. I understand that you think it is irrational and unreasonable, but I want you to point out which specific parts, and explain why - not just repeat your initial claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No. I understand that you think it is irrational and unreasonable, but I want you to point out which specific parts, and explain why - not just repeat your initial claim.

Okay, because you could do other ways that just naturalism or religion and in effect do science. And there is now way to decide if naturalism or e.g. coherentism is correct. But that requires a meta level to decide if the one or the other is correct. But the meta level requires a meta-meta level.
It is a part of Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of justification.

 

[KWED]

Okay, because you could do other ways that just naturalism or religion and in effect do science. And there is now way to decide if naturalism or e.g. coherentism is correct. But that requires a meta level to decide if the one or the other is correct. But the meta level requires a meta-meta level.
It is a part of Agrippa's Trilemma and the problem of justification.

Nope. Still didn't point out which part of the description you quoted was unreasonable or irrational.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Nope. Still didn't point out which part of the description you quoted was unreasonable or irrational.

So it is something without proof, evidence, truth or logic rational?

 

[KWED]

So it is something without proof, evidence, truth or logic rational?

What is?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What is?

Sorry.
Again, is a presumption without proof, evidence, truth or logical rational?

 

[KWED]

Sorry.
Again, is a presumption without proof, evidence, truth or logical rational?

Probably not, but you still haven't shown what part of the description you quoted is untrue, irrational or illogical. At best you can claim that it doesn't necessarily paint the whole picture.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Probably not, but you still haven't shown what part of the description you quoted is untrue, irrational or illogical. At best you can claim that it doesn't necessarily paint the whole picture.

Well, I am not going to prove a negative. Rather you show it is logical, true or rational. You claim the positive, so you have the burden of proof.