(March 16, 2009 at 12:46 pm)Mark Wrote: There may be a "first cause" but if so, it is futile to seek its cause.But how would you make sure that it IS the first cause otherwise? It is a working hypothesis wouldn't it?
How will you have any certainty if something is the first cause or not if you don't check for if it actually IS the first cause?
By checking in case IT actually has a cause too and therefore ISN'T actually the first cause?
And of course if you fail to falsify the "first cause" then you will still never 100% absolutely know for sure. You will never know 100% absolutely for sure what's round the corner I think, or you never CAN scientifically, rather.
Why do we NEED to know 100%? We don't do we? We go by what is most probable. Even God cannot be disproved...he is just extremely improbable.
Until a hypothesis that is actually a scientific theory, law, fact, etc that is backed up very strongly with evidence; is falsified - it shall be assumed to be correct right?
And until there is any evidence for a hypothesis it shall be assumed to be false. Evidence - for a hypothesis - needs to be collected, studied and found before a hypothesis is given any credit in the first place of course. Right?
If we can't be 100% absolutely sure that a "first cause" 'really IS' the first cause...that doesn't mean there's no point in checking. Science works by testability right? Its an on-going thing.
Can't you find an ultimate theory of everything...and then still check to make sure IT IS the ultimate theory of everything, to make sure you haven't missed anything?
How on earth otherwise, are you supposed to have any idea if you've got a Theory of Everything if you don't check if you have? If you don't make sure there isn't more out there? And keep making sure and scraping the bottom of the barrel?
And checking if your Theory of Everything is correct too...not just what might be missing...but to make sure the substance of the Theory of Everything is not flawed...and that nothing is missing there too. Making sure no mistakes are missed.
And so how will you ever 100% know absolutely what's round the corner anyway? Science doesn't claim absolute certainty. If it did it would not have doubt and experiment and it wouldn't work, it would be a dogma I think, without doubt, wouldn't it? It wouldn't function as science.
Please correct me if I'm at all wrong here. I'm by no means an expert on the subject!! Just giving my views and am interested by the discussion.
I am giving questions at least as much as answers I'm sure.
EvF
