Max Demian wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
J G Miller wrote:
On Monday, May 28th, 2012, at 09:40:30h +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

Big Bang Theory is very definitely a full theory supported by hard
observational evidence no matter what Young Earth Creationist's and
other delusional religious nutters might have you believe.
Such as the life long atheist and Darwinist Fred Hoyle, FRS?
Well yes and no..

The big bang is a theory which is not refuted by the evidence, that's all.

So actually is Creationism. God could as easily created a universe
complete with a fake fossil record and all conditions just right to LOOK
as though it was much older etc. etc.

William of Occam might have had something to say about that...


A much misquoted man. From a time when science was called Natural
Philosophy and people actually understood what it was and what they were
doing with it.

Occams razor implies that no theory has truth content. It tacitly
accepts that all theories are just conjecture, and therefore the
pragmatic thing to do is select the one that is easiest to use.


And Occam's razor itself is context sensitive: In the context of some
peoples worldview, the thought of a massive explosion that set time and
space ticking is far far more preposterous and unnecessary than a
supernatural being who sat there with his PC and designed a universe as
an act of pure love and creativity...

Metaphysical theories are free issue: everybody has to have one, in
order to put structure into their experience. It is the assumption of
the Material Realist that Natural Laws exist, but are blind and
mechanical. And that the overarching principle of the Universe is
causality expressed through time varying development

There is as little reason to believe that is true as there is for a sky
fairy.

One merely notes that it has better predictive results. But one also
notes that its predictions apply to the metaphysical structure it itself
defines: That is, if you believe it, and use it, it works, but that may
be no more than a self fulfilling prophecy.






The problem is that is an irrefutable theory* and hence according to
Popper, metaphysical, not scientific. And its not actually a useful
theory either - it makes no predictions at all.



--
To people who know nothing, anything is possible.
To people who know too much, it is a sad fact
that they know how little is really possible -
and how hard it is to achieve it.