Hi, > Fascinating thread.
> Unfortunately all discussions of origins fall short of being > "scientific". None of them can be stated in such a way as to allow > for either measurable proof (scientific method) and hence no > disprovability statement. They're not quantifiable, repeatable, or > testable. Neither special creation nor Sagan's "the universe is all > there is" principle have any real foundation in testability. I don't think you understand what 'scientific' means. While it may not be possible in practice to test some of the theories empirically, they are _in principle_ falsifiable, and it is certainly possible to show that they are logically consistent and follow from premises which _are_ testable empirically. Most other origin stories, myths or 'theories' are not falsifiable even in principle, let alone in practice; this is why 'creation science' is a contradiction in terms. > Getting something from nothing is as inconceivable to the > naturalist (who has no place for a creator to intervene) as the > existence of anything without cause is inconceivable to the special > creationist (who always looks for purpose). In fact it was so-called naturalists (whatever you mean by that) who _did_ conceive of something from nothing, so you are quite wrong there. And creationists do indeed conceive of something without cause - God. So you are quite wrong there too. > This paradox should > challenge the mind to be working through the issue rather than > simply accepting any statement as the resolution of the issue. -- Cheers, Bob
