What is the best theory?

[yetiman10000]

Though Creationism is an answer to the origin of life, it is not the best answer. Not only can't anything be proven, but none of it is probable. Personally, I don't believe in Creationism or the Big Bang theory. In the end, all of these are theories, but what it comes down to is, "What is the best theory?"

 

[gnomon]

Whichever theory has the most supporting evidence.

The problem with creationism is that it presupposes a creator and then relies on the general assumption that reality is evidence of the creator never minding the fact that reality doesn't posit any affirmative indication of the creator.

The big bang theory does have evidence supporting as opposed to the concept of creationism which relies solely on the imagination of the individual asserting creationist theory.

edit: and by the way, welcome to the forums.

 

[logician]

Creationism as a "theory" was debunked long ago - it's now it the dustbin of theories that flopped.

 

[Tiberius]

A good theory is a theory which examines the evidence that is collected from the real world and provides an explanation which explains why that evidence is there. it will then go on to make testable predictions about the theory (it "theorises"). If these predictions are shown to be accurate, then it is further support that the theory accuratly describes the real world.

For example, the theory of gravity explains why things fall the way they do, and it also makes predictions about the future. We are able to predict how quickly an object will fall, what force it will hiot the ground with, etc. A famous example of predictions in the theory of gravity was the experiment conducted on the moon when a hammer and a feather were dropped at the same time and they fell at the same rate.

The theory behind the Periodic Table of the elements was also able to make predictions about the nature of elements that had not been discovered at that point. These predictions were later shown to be completely accurate.

Creationism does make an attempt to explain the past, but it makes no predictions whatsoever about the future, so it cannot be called a theory.

The Big Bang theory does make an explanation about the past, and it also made predictions. The Big bang theory also predicted the expansion of the universe as well as the cosmic background radiation.

 

[Ryan2065]

Creationism does make an attempt to explain the past, but it makes no predictions whatsoever about the future, so it cannot be called a theory.

Also the whole lack of science behind it kinda makes it not able to be called a scientific theory :angel2:

 

[troyjsmalley]

Both creationism and darwinism begin with assumptions including God. creationism: that God did it and we will provide the evidence for how God did it(this was the approach of scientists before Darwin), and darwinistic evolution: God is not needed to answer the question, everything in question regarding nature can be answered by natural laws and processes(indeed, this is the view held by modern science).

I contend that both approaches to science are needlessly subjective. Lets come to science without any view of God, whether He is responsible or not responsible for the universe, life etc. Lets not read in our premises into our conclusions.Lets look at the evidence and then draw our conclusions from them.

 

[Ryan2065]

I contend that both approaches to science are needlessly subjective. Lets come to science without any view of God, whether He is responsible or not responsible for the universe, life etc. Lets not read in our premises into our conclusions.Lets look at the evidence and then draw our conclusions from them.

If we take all views of god out of science then again.. we have the view of "No god is involved in science so god is not needed to answer the question". This is the same view of those who do not believe in god. If god really did do some things then at a certain point in time it would be useless to go get more evidence because there would be no more evidence. So a view of god is necessary in science to know when we should stop looking for evidence of certain things and move on.

 

[Tiberius]

Both creationism and darwinism begin with assumptions including God. creationism: that God did it and we will provide the evidence for how God did it(this was the approach of scientists before Darwin), and darwinistic evolution: God is not needed to answer the question, everything in question regarding nature can be answered by natural laws and processes(indeed, this is the view held by modern science).

You are mistaken. Creationism does reach it's own conclusion and then tries to find supporting evidence, but science does not.

Science gathers evidence and then examines that evidence to reach a conclusion. Science does not begin with any assumptions. If science gathers evidence that indicates there is a God, then it will examine that evidence and use that evidence to reach a conclusion. Just the same as it does about the Big Bang or anything else.

Science does not care about God. it only cares for the truth. If it finds that the truth is that God exists, it will accept that.

 

[KaLi]

Unless divine experiences with God are considered proof of his existence, God is either one of three things:


1. Non-existent

2. Completely uninteractive with the universe

3. The very universe we live in.

Yet people still believe our very existence is ultimate proof that some God made us and actually cares about us...

 

[Tiberius]

The trouble is that the first two lead to a God that doesn't deserve our worship, and the third one isn't really God, it is merely redefining God to mean something that we already have a different word for.

 

[troyjsmalley]

You are mistaken. Creationism does reach it's own conclusion and then tries to find supporting evidence, but science does not.

I agree. I believe that creationism presumes that God is responsible and then then tries to 'prove' it. (the theistic scientists such as Newton did not try to prove God's existence from science, however he did presume it.)

However, modern science also does have it's presumptions. It doesn't allow for the interactions of God with the universe.

Notice that I did not propose that we take God out science. I did however propose that we should take God out of our presuppositions, in order to be more objective.

We can not provide evidence for the existence of God from what we don't know (the god of the gaps), but I do believe that we can find evidence for the existence of God from what we do know, (ie. the singularity of the universe).

 

[troyjsmalley]

Unless divine experiences with God are considered proof of his existence, God is either one of three things:


1. Non-existent

2. Completely uninteractive with the universe

3. The very universe we live in.

Yet people still believe our very existence is ultimate proof that some God made us and actually cares about us...

Please show me how it is impossible for there to be other kinds of proofs for the existence of God. Of course, this is impossible. It would be to prove a universal negative. You would have to prove that we know of all the different kinds of proofs.

Also, your second point does not follow from your contention. It may be possible that God does not interact with us directly, but is active within the universe.
Please explain your third point.

 

[Ryan2065]

However, modern science also does have it's presumptions. It doesn't allow for the interactions of God with the universe.

Modern science does not have presumptions of no god... Many scientists in fact believe in God, it is just they do not let that belief interfere with their work. Science deals with the natural world... If there is no natural explanation of what occured then that is what science says. It is just quite hard to be able to rule out a natural explanation when we don't know everything about the natural world.

We can not provide evidence for the existence of God from what we don't know (the god of the gaps), but I do believe that we can find evidence for the existence of God from what we do know, (ie. the singularity of the universe).

Could you explain better how the singularity theory gives evidence to god?

 

[Ryan2065]

Please show me how it is impossible for there to be other kinds of proofs for the existence of God. Of course, this is impossible. It would be to prove a universal negative. You would have to prove that we know of all the different kinds of proofs.

I believe the both of you should replace "proof" with "evidence".

Also, your second point does not follow from your contention. It may be possible that God does not interact with us directly, but is active within the universe.

Yup that is the 4th one =P
If god is A and the universe is B then there is a series we could do...
A exists (or doesn't)
If A exists:
A has something to do with B (or not)
If A has something to do with B:
A could have created B (or not)
A could be active in B (or not)
A could be B (or not)

But one of those 3 needs to be true if A does have something to do with B. More than one can be true... Then you can branch out further from those assumptions... =)