As I promised, I am going to present a proof that someone created the Universe. But before doing that I am going to state my philosophical position.
I am a positivist. Being one, I reject several philosophical systems including idealism, realism, scientific realism and the Popper doctrine (he called it "deductivism"). Non-positivists might reject my proof; for example, it is not acceptable to the scientific realists and to the followers of the Popper doctrine.
From the positivist's point of view a theory or a statement based on never-ending experiment is false (scientific realists hold the opposite point of view). For example, the statement "The laws of physics will always remain in their current form" is false.
Also, for the positivist a theory based on assumption that could not be proved or disproved is false. Scientific realists see thing differently -- for them such theory could be correct.
There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it. Not everyone accepts this rule -- Popper said that the third remaining statement must be falsifiable in order to be true. But the positivists reject Popper's idea of falsifiability (Popper rejected positivism in return).
Now, the proof itself. There are three contradictory statements:
1). The universe was not created, it always existed.
2).The universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process (quantum fluctuation, maybe)
3).Someone produced the universe.
I'll start with the first statement. Suppose you met someone who claims to be as old as the universe (obviously that person is not the Creator). He might be telling the truth or he might be a liar. However, his past is irrelevant to his claim. Naturally you would ask him what kind of evidence does he have to prove that the universe always existed. The best possible evidence would be a videotape showing all stages of the universe's development. Whether the tape is authentic or it is a fake is irrelevant -- it is of infinite length and it cannot be reviewed in its entirety. Being unverifiable, this statement is false.
Moving on to the second statement. Suppose you met an observer who came to be at the same time the universe was produced, as he claims. He also has a videotape showing the process of creation and further evolution of the universe. From the positivist's point of view this is an ideal scenario -- we have an Observer! But his account of events could be incomplete -- he might have been created after the universe had been produced, but he has no knowledge of this sequence of events. The authenticity of his videotape is irrelevant. His testimony neither proves nor disproves that the universe produced itself. For a positivist his claim is false. However, a person who subscribes to scientific realism might be willing to accept his testimony. Everything depends on the individual's personal views.
The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by someone. Of course, a person who says that he is the Creator is, most likely, an impostor. But his sincerity or lack of it doesn't matter as far as my logical deduction goes.
It doesn't follow from my presentation that there is only one Creator; as someone noted, there might be billions of Creators. A separate proof is needed to show that the Creator is unique.
I have said nothing about the Creator's identity. He (they) could be god of the Bible, god Brahma, Adi-Buddha, Oden, etc.
I am a positivist. Being one, I reject several philosophical systems including idealism, realism, scientific realism and the Popper doctrine (he called it "deductivism"). Non-positivists might reject my proof; for example, it is not acceptable to the scientific realists and to the followers of the Popper doctrine.
From the positivist's point of view a theory or a statement based on never-ending experiment is false (scientific realists hold the opposite point of view). For example, the statement "The laws of physics will always remain in their current form" is false.
Also, for the positivist a theory based on assumption that could not be proved or disproved is false. Scientific realists see thing differently -- for them such theory could be correct.
There is also another positivist assertion that not everyone accepts. Suppose you have three contradictory explanations of an event. If you can prove that the first two are false this automatically implies that the third one is true, you do not have to prove it. Not everyone accepts this rule -- Popper said that the third remaining statement must be falsifiable in order to be true. But the positivists reject Popper's idea of falsifiability (Popper rejected positivism in return).
Now, the proof itself. There are three contradictory statements:
1). The universe was not created, it always existed.
2).The universe came to be by itself, as a result of some process (quantum fluctuation, maybe)
3).Someone produced the universe.
I'll start with the first statement. Suppose you met someone who claims to be as old as the universe (obviously that person is not the Creator). He might be telling the truth or he might be a liar. However, his past is irrelevant to his claim. Naturally you would ask him what kind of evidence does he have to prove that the universe always existed. The best possible evidence would be a videotape showing all stages of the universe's development. Whether the tape is authentic or it is a fake is irrelevant -- it is of infinite length and it cannot be reviewed in its entirety. Being unverifiable, this statement is false.
Moving on to the second statement. Suppose you met an observer who came to be at the same time the universe was produced, as he claims. He also has a videotape showing the process of creation and further evolution of the universe. From the positivist's point of view this is an ideal scenario -- we have an Observer! But his account of events could be incomplete -- he might have been created after the universe had been produced, but he has no knowledge of this sequence of events. The authenticity of his videotape is irrelevant. His testimony neither proves nor disproves that the universe produced itself. For a positivist his claim is false. However, a person who subscribes to scientific realism might be willing to accept his testimony. Everything depends on the individual's personal views.
The only remaining possibility is that the universe was created by someone. Of course, a person who says that he is the Creator is, most likely, an impostor. But his sincerity or lack of it doesn't matter as far as my logical deduction goes.
It doesn't follow from my presentation that there is only one Creator; as someone noted, there might be billions of Creators. A separate proof is needed to show that the Creator is unique.
I have said nothing about the Creator's identity. He (they) could be god of the Bible, god Brahma, Adi-Buddha, Oden, etc.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/2NnDU7S
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire