RE: Easy arguments against the Bible, and religion as a whole
December 16, 2011 at 3:23 am
(This post was last modified: December 16, 2011 at 3:25 am by Jackalope.)
We don't need to have observed an event to determine what is most likely to have happened.
Let's use the big bang as an example - clearly, no human being witnessed the event. What we can do is make observations, formulate a hypothesis, make predictions based on that hypothesis and see how our hypothesis fares against those predictions.
I'm not going to get into a detailed timeline of the scientific research that went into the big bang, it's covered elsewhere if you care to look. Wikipedia has a pretty good synopsis of the evidence, and it's fairly approachable to the layman.
The evidence we have fits the theory (and there's plenty of it). It's the best naturalistic explanation we have - and there is no competing theory (scientific or supernatural) that fits the evidence. The only real controversy in the scientific community is over some of the specifics. That's not to say that the model is 100% correct and proven. Science doesn't deal in certainties. It's entirely possible that we've got it wrong - but at this time, it is quite simply the best explanation that we have.
Anyone with a competing hypothesis is certainly free to put that hypothesis to the same level of scientific scrutiny that the big bang has been through and see how it stands up. No one has been able to do so to date.
There is simply no rational reason to invoke "goddidit" here.
Let's use the big bang as an example - clearly, no human being witnessed the event. What we can do is make observations, formulate a hypothesis, make predictions based on that hypothesis and see how our hypothesis fares against those predictions.
I'm not going to get into a detailed timeline of the scientific research that went into the big bang, it's covered elsewhere if you care to look. Wikipedia has a pretty good synopsis of the evidence, and it's fairly approachable to the layman.
The evidence we have fits the theory (and there's plenty of it). It's the best naturalistic explanation we have - and there is no competing theory (scientific or supernatural) that fits the evidence. The only real controversy in the scientific community is over some of the specifics. That's not to say that the model is 100% correct and proven. Science doesn't deal in certainties. It's entirely possible that we've got it wrong - but at this time, it is quite simply the best explanation that we have.
Anyone with a competing hypothesis is certainly free to put that hypothesis to the same level of scientific scrutiny that the big bang has been through and see how it stands up. No one has been able to do so to date.
There is simply no rational reason to invoke "goddidit" here.
