No Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory??

[Veritas Aequitas]

What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?

To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical] is the Bottom-up approach, i.e. one start with a basic belief at the bottom to explain why things and reality as it is at the present.

One contribution with Big Bang and Evolution [abiogenesis] are as basis to counter against the existence of God argument. But there are other arguments to argue against God's existence.

One problem is the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory are still subject to the problem of infinite regression, i.e. what happened before them?

I believe there is no loss nor handicap to humanity if we were to deny or ignore the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory for certain arguments.

This is where I argue for the Emergence and Realization of Reality [within a FSERC] from the TOP-DOWN approach.
Instead of starting from the bottom to explain the present, we strive to understand reality from what is justified and existing at present to as far down as our empirical evidences and critical thinking can support it without any concern for any ultimate grounds.

With Emergence, what is critical is we can rely on FSERC scientific truths to make useful predictions that can be justified with testing and repeatability thus enable confidence in their ability to predict and therefrom make positive contributions [in all aspects] to humanity in terms of scientific based technology.

What is Emergence & a priori Realization of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721

There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.

Discuss??
Views??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes:

[Age]

As I have been saying and asking, 'Why make up any theory, when one can just look at what actually exists, happens, or occurs, instead?'

[Gary Childress]

What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?

To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical] is the Bottom-up approach, i.e. one start with a basic belief at the bottom to explain why things and reality as it is at the present.

One contribution with Big Bang and Evolution [abiogenesis] are as basis to counter against the existence of God argument. But there are other arguments to argue against God's existence.

One problem is the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory are still subject to the problem of infinite regression, i.e. what happened before them?

I believe there is no loss nor handicap to humanity if we were to deny or ignore the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory for certain arguments.

This is where I argue for the Emergence and Realization of Reality [within a FSERC] from the TOP-DOWN approach.
Instead of starting from the bottom to explain the present, we strive to understand reality from what is justified and existing at present to as far down as our empirical evidences and critical thinking can support it without any concern for any ultimate grounds.

With Emergence, what is critical is we can rely on FSERC scientific truths to make useful predictions that can be justified with testing and repeatability thus enable confidence in their ability to predict and therefrom make positive contributions [in all aspects] to humanity in terms of scientific based technology.

What is Emergence & a priori Realization of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721

There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.

Discuss??
Views??

From what I can make out of what you are saying, this seems like a sensible approach. I think you are right, that evolution draws a lot of its meaning out of its opposition to certain theological theories. And the big bang does beg the question, what happened before it. I mean, if I'm understanding correctly, then I think there's good sense in beginning with what we see here and now and not necessarily postulating a big bang or an evolution.

On the other hand, what if the big bang and evolution are correct accounts of the history of the universe and living beings? Am I correct that your approach does not deny that possibility?

[Age]

What have we got to lose if we were to deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory?

To rely on the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [which are speculative and theoretical] is the Bottom-up approach, i.e. one start with a basic belief at the bottom to explain why things and reality as it is at the present.

One contribution with Big Bang and Evolution [abiogenesis] are as basis to counter against the existence of God argument. But there are other arguments to argue against God's existence.

One problem is the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory are still subject to the problem of infinite regression, i.e. what happened before them?

I believe there is no loss nor handicap to humanity if we were to deny or ignore the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory for certain arguments.

This is where I argue for the Emergence and Realization of Reality [within a FSERC] from the TOP-DOWN approach.
Instead of starting from the bottom to explain the present, we strive to understand reality from what is justified and existing at present to as far down as our empirical evidences and critical thinking can support it without any concern for any ultimate grounds.

With Emergence, what is critical is we can rely on FSERC scientific truths to make useful predictions that can be justified with testing and repeatability thus enable confidence in their ability to predict and therefrom make positive contributions [in all aspects] to humanity in terms of scientific based technology.

What is Emergence & a priori Realization of Reality
viewtopic.php?t=40721

There might be some loss if we deny the Big Bang & Evolutionary Theory [Bottom-Up] (which is reasonable up to a point), but the tradeoff for Emergence [Top-Down] is a lose-win [net-win] situation.

Discuss??
Views??

From what I can make out of what you are saying, this seems like a sensible approach. I think you are right, that evolution draws a lot of its meaning out of its opposition to certain theological theories. And the big bang does beg the question, what happened before it. I mean, if I'm understanding correctly, then I think there's good sense in beginning with what we see here and now and not necessarily postulating a big bang or an evolution.

On the other hand, what if the big bang and evolution are correct accounts of the history of the universe and living beings?

It is an actual physical and theoretical impossibility for a beginning of the Universe, Itself, either with or from a big bang or God. So, one could Accurately disregard that 'the big bang' is correct.

However, one of many bangs is absolutely feasible.

Am I correct that your approach does not deny that possibility?

If "veritas aequitas" approach does not deny the possibility of an impossibility, then 'that approach' is just nonsensical, and irrational.

[Gary Childress]

If "veritas aequitas" approach does not deny the possibility of an impossibility, then 'that approach' is just nonsensical, and irrational.

Are the Big Bang and Evolution "impossibilities", though? Isn't it a bit like saying that the creation story in the Bible is an impossibility? I mean, is it "impossible" that such things could be true or is it more along the lines of "unlikely"?

[Age]

If "veritas aequitas" approach does not deny the possibility of an impossibility, then 'that approach' is just nonsensical, and irrational.

Are the Big Bang and Evolution "impossibilities", though?

The claim that the big bang was the start of, cause of, or at the beginning of, the whole Universe, Itself, is an absolute and irrefutable impossibility.

That evolution exists is pretty well obvious and self-evident. In fact that your views of things have 'changed', literally, proves that 'change', or evolution, actually exists.

Isn't it a bit like saying that the creation story in the Bible is an impossibility?

But, the, actual, 'creation story', in the bible, is irrefutably True. That the 'misinterpretation' of the 'creation story', in the bible, all of you adult human beings have, is, obviously, an impossibility, though.

Once more, 'evolution' AND 'creation' both exist.

Just like 'the things', in all so-called 'philosophical discussions', where disagreement exists, both exist. For example, 'Nature' AND 'nurture', 'free' AND 'determinism.

I mean, is it "impossible" that such things could be true or is it more along the lines of "unlikely"?

What is actually True, from what are just Falsehoods, can be very easily and very simply differentiated and distinguished, and almost instantaneously. That is; once one discovers, or learns, and knows how-to. (Although this is obviously very contrary to the 'popular belief' of you people here, in the days when this is being written.)

But, if absolutely any one would like to put me to 'the test' and challenge me over this here, then please, by all means, do.

It is an absolute impossibility that the Universe, Itself, began, and/or is expanding. This can be, and has been, settled, once and for all, and in just a few very short words alone.

And, that both:
'Creation' AND 'evolution',
'Nature' AND 'nurture', and,
'Free will' AND 'determinism' exist,

Are not just 'possible' but are 'irrefutable'.

[LuckyR]

The importance of the creation story as pertains to religiosity and theism has too prominent of a status in Philosophical debate when compared to it's importance in the lives of the religious (and nonreligious).

In other words in my experience almost none of the religious and nonreligious people I know hinged their belief (or nonbelief) on how well or poorly religion explained the creation story.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you are right, that evolution draws a lot of its meaning out of its opposition to certain theological theories.

No... that couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution really doesn't have all that much to do with theological ideas at all - there's a reason why the pope accepts evolution.

Maybe a lot of fans of evolution draw meaning from opposition to theological ideas, but the idea of evolution itself... no.

[Impenitent]

there was creation and we evolved from there and we are still evolving into tree hugging communists (according to some)

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

I think you are right, that evolution draws a lot of its meaning out of its opposition to certain theological theories.

No... that couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution really doesn't have all that much to do with theological ideas at all - there's a reason why the pope accepts evolution.

Maybe a lot of fans of evolution draw meaning from opposition to theological ideas, but the idea of evolution itself... no.

You say it could not be "further from the truth" and then affirm my point. \_(*_*)_/

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you are right, that evolution draws a lot of its meaning out of its opposition to certain theological theories.

No... that couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution really doesn't have all that much to do with theological ideas at all - there's a reason why the pope accepts evolution.

Maybe a lot of fans of evolution draw meaning from opposition to theological ideas, but the idea of evolution itself... no.

You say it could not be "further from the truth" and then affirm my point. \_(*_*)_/

"Evolution draws"

vs

"Fans of evolution draw"

Do you not think there's a difference?

[Gary Childress]

The importance of the creation story as pertains to religiosity and theism has too prominent of a status in Philosophical debate when compared to it's importance in the lives of the religious (and nonreligious).

In other words in my experience almost none of the religious and nonreligious people I know hinged their belief (or nonbelief) on how well or poorly religion explained the creation story.

I think most people tacitly agree that evolution is the more likely scenario (at least since the point of a beginning), up until we start talking about removing intelligent design completely from the picture, then things start to get murky.

[Gary Childress]

No... that couldn't be further from the truth. Evolution really doesn't have all that much to do with theological ideas at all - there's a reason why the pope accepts evolution.

Maybe a lot of fans of evolution draw meaning from opposition to theological ideas, but the idea of evolution itself... no.

You say it could not be "further from the truth" and then affirm my point. \_(*_*)_/

"Evolution draws"

vs

"Fans of evolution draw"

Do you not think there's a difference?

Not entirely.