O
Oreoracle
Guest
A common misconception. “Theory” is the highest level of achievement in science; there is nothing beyond a theory. We never reach the point where we classify theory as fact, for example.
- Status
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
Why is God the simplest explanation? Also, why should the simplest explanation be necessarily correct? The reason i ask this is because some atheists say that God requires an even greater explanation than the universe.
F
fisherman_carl
Guest
If the universe had a beginning then that proves something outside the universe created it. Since the universe could not bring itself into existence from non-being. In order to do that it would have to exist prior to its own existence in order to bring itself into being. But that would be logically impossible. So something outside the universe that is not dependent on the universe for its own existence existed prior to the universe.
What could possibly exist prior to the universe?
God
Multiverse - but then current science shows it also must have a beginning. So we just move the problem back a step…
Perhaps God being the best explanation because he is the only real explanation for existence. Otherwise you are left with no explanation.
What could possibly exist prior to the universe?
God
Multiverse - but then current science shows it also must have a beginning. So we just move the problem back a step…
Perhaps God being the best explanation because he is the only real explanation for existence. Otherwise you are left with no explanation.
A
Aloysium
Guest
- What is the misconception?
- IMHO the highest acheivements in science are those wherein a pratctical use is derived from all the ideas and theories. But then, science makes me money. A theory is a system that explains things. They are always questioned, reformulated and replaced. There is no final “achievement” - just multiple ongoing contributions to a growing body of knowledge regarding the physical world.
- I don’t know where you get that we don’t “classify theory as fact”. In common parlance a scientific fact is an observation (obviously related to the technology and theoretical framework that allows for the event to be observed) that has been confirmed repeatedly and is accepted as never ultimately, but practically-speaking true. Evolution is considered by many to be a theory and a fact.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Yeah, I thought I’d revisit the old forums. It’s good to be back!Oreoracle? Wow, this is a blast from the past!
Good to see you again, friend.
Linus said “That is why the Big Bang is still regarded as a theory”, as if something is holding it back from being something more than a theory. There is nothing beyond a theory in science. Even the notions that matter consists of atoms or that illnesses are caused by germs are merely theories.
This is because all understanding in science is provisional. There was a time when it seemed a sure thing that Newtonian physics was completely correct, but then Relativity came along. Anyone who claimed that Newtonian physics was more than a theory jumped the gun, and it would likewise be a mistake to regard Relativity as fact rather than theory.
And I agree that there is no “final” achievement. I only meant that “theory” is the highest status an explanation can hold in terms of how probable it is to be true. Of course we are never completely certain of anything, as I said.
No, a fact is just data that a theory explains. For example, a fact would be “This rock took 3.427 seconds to hit the ground after it was released.” A theory would say “The object fell at this rate due to Earth’s gravitational field.”
O
onenow1
Guest
Eye has not seen ear has not heard what God has in store for thoese who love Him.
Is the above a clue to the universe ? Are eye and ear equal to visible world only?
God is so far above us as Creator how can we expect to know, in this world His ways or His plan for us except by faith in the gospel.
John 17: 20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
God sent His Son into our finite world; His message ! God indeed exists, and has a place for us in His heavenly world.
Jesus appeared to the apostles in a closed room Wow !
God Bless
onenow1
Is the above a clue to the universe ? Are eye and ear equal to visible world only?
God is so far above us as Creator how can we expect to know, in this world His ways or His plan for us except by faith in the gospel.
John 17: 20 "I do not pray for these only, but also for those who believe in me through their word,
God sent His Son into our finite world; His message ! God indeed exists, and has a place for us in His heavenly world.
Jesus appeared to the apostles in a closed room Wow !
God Bless
onenow1
A
Aloysium
Guest
- Big Bang is a theory. There are others including: nature.com/news/cosmologist-claims-universe-may-not-be-expanding-1.13379.
- Fact =/= just data. It is a theory that the earth orbits the sun. It is so well proven, however, that it is considered scientific fact, as is the gravitational constant. For example, check out Basic Facts about Gravity: stanford.edu/~buzzt/gravity.html.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
The multiverse could give birth to new bubble universes by a process of chaotic quantum fluctuation or some other seeding process. I don’t see where science shows that the multiverse must have a beginning. Perhaps you are thinking of the BVG theorem, which Father Spitzer has often referred to. However, I don’t see where the conditions of the theorem on expansion are fulfilled by the multiverse.
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Perhaps a parallel question would be whether consciousness proves the existence of God, or at least something spiritual. Consciousness seems to have a non-material nature, but a strict evolutionist may disagree.
T
tdgesq
Guest
Ah…, the parlance of the natural sciences. Your explanation really doesn’t reflect how scientists commonly use these terms. A scientific theory may have relatively more or less evidence in its favor, but it has enough to qualify as a theory rather than a mere hypothesis. On the other hand, where a theory has been confirmed by evidence so extensively that there is no reason to continue testing it or adducing additional evidence, it is commonly referred to as a scientific fact. Competing cosmological theories exist that are supported by varying degrees of evidence, such that none of them can be considered a scientific fact; which is I think what Linus is getting at.
Your first example certainly is a scientific (as measured) fact, but most scientists would say that the second is also. This is supported both by the common definition of “scientific fact” as well as innumerable examples of scientists using the term in this way, including the National Academy of Sciences.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
We may or may not have more than one universe. Science can only prove that we have one universe. Science may speculate all it wants about multiple universes. It will never be able to prove their existence using the scientific method, for the simple reason that no argument for more than one universe will ever be falsifiable. So the very complaint scientists bring against argument for the existence of God should also be brought against arguments for multiple universes.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
The multiverse may or may not exist. This business of “could give birth” is very simplistic. It’s just as possible that a multiverse “could not give birth”. Where is your proof either way. Speculation is far from proof, and certainly far from scientific proof.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Why a greater explanation? No scientific explanation at all would account for why God exists. But no explanation would also account for a multiverse.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
Perhaps that isn’t the way the terms are sometimes used. I am saying that, ideally, science was never intended to blur the lines between fact and theory. The usage of those terms vary, but the definitions themselves aren’t so flexible.
It’s as if I misrepresented the philosophies of theologians by pointing out that pastors sometimes misuse theological terminology. This misuse doesn’t discredit those philosophies, only the men who abuse them.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
A theory May be true or May Not be true so long as it remains a theory. Only facts canget us beyond theory to truth.
There is no fact of a multiverse. There is a fact of a universe.
O
Oreoracle
Guest
I guess there was a misunderstanding. I wasn’t arguing for a multiverse. I was just pointing out a misuse of the word “theory” several posts ago.
P
polytropos
Guest
I think there is some overlap between the usage of “scientific fact” and “scientific theory.” I believe all facts are theories (neither are absolutely sacrosanct or immune to potential revision). Theory is a slightly weaker notion. (Though I imagine a law would be considered a fact. I’m not sure whether a law would be considered a theory.)
T
Tomdstone
Guest
Some people believe that physical laws are mathematical models which approximate conditions in the real world, but are not absolute and immutable.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
That the universe is expanding at an accelerating pace is considered a fact. Under no circumstances could it be considered a theory since astronomers have observed the shifting of the galaxies away from each other. Why it is expanding is unknown, since we cannot know the circumstances that produced the Big Bang.
- Status