to claim that an assumption (of science) is “truth” is exactly as ridiculous as the claim that an assumption (of god) is “truth”
both are assumptions, neither is “truth”
and no, the species does not function this way… but “functioning” isn’t the “truth” either…
-Imp
Exactly. That the scientific method works (i.e. has worked) is so often taken as a justification for its claims, which is of course circular, as we’ve discussed before…
I agree with the induction fallacy wholeheartedly. Yet, knowing this it is of little matter or consequence to how we should mold our human endevours. Except perhaps justifying the existential dogma of living in the now, and letting go from time to time to experience relief from recursive, theoritical, and analytical nightmares, and runaway trains of thought. Other then the “Spiritual” realization that all we “know” is the present, and assymetry of time, there isn’t much use for this realization, certainly not in the manner you are attempting to use it.
If you really think that The assumption that tommorow will be like today, and that the laws of physics will hold, is anything like the assumption of a god, then we should just throw everything out the window. Take a nihlistic approach and blow our brains out. But Thankfully the world seems to follow laws, and everyday the laws of physics hold(they might not tommorow, but if they didn’t we wouldn’t be around to care anyways), so it seems just to mold our lives according to this.
What do you mean by this, that the assumption of a uniform natural world leads us to ponder the ‘first cause’ of such a uniform natural world and hence to the assumption of a god/s or other similar thing?
true (wait, is it!?!?), but one is closer to the truth because you can say that while the experiment is taking place, the laws describing it are in fact describing it accurately, regardless of whether or not the laws address the first cause.
this is useful because you can make use of this quasi-pseudo-truth to make things like computers and social systems designed for peasant manipulation.
but religion is about as useful as a fake flying spaghetti monster.
indeed we should… but humans are not rational creatures.
-Imp
no, that one assumption (godless uniform natural world) is just as good as another assumption (god created/controlled uniform natural world)…
neither are worth a damn, the logic is equally flawed
-Imp
one is “closer” to that which is unknown? by what faculty do you see this “closer” quality?
screw religion.
screw science.
they are both fatally flawed, but of course the “scientists” have their religious dogma that they refuse to admit having.
at least (most) religion is truthful about taking things on faith
-Imp
“we should” implies that you have some goal in mind that will be accomplished by doing this. 
please continue.
i dont know how to explain it much better than that. if you add, to the end of every scientific theory, the clause “and it just might totally change right under your nose right now and we dont know why this happens, only that it does” then every scientific theory will be objectively and completely true.
he was the one who brought up should…
I merely answered in kind
-Imp
its no always about facts and what we know but is it POSSIBLE?
i assume your talking about the creation of the universe?
well im gonna answer it like thats what your asking.
well the two theories can co-exist quite rationally, if you were to simply assume that God created the universe, and that creation was the Big Bang. That would mean God would have to exist before our universe and then he created it with the Big Bang. easy to grasp and understand.
you would have to drop the silly notion that creationism (now we are talking about evolution) is a possibility. evolution and time is what created everything that we see in the universe (this is pretty much a fact). you could apply an intelligent design theory very easily to that.
personally i dont think that there was any big bang or any creation of the universe. the universe simply is and always has been and always will be. never was there nothing.
as for intelligent design, that makes perfect sense so why deny it or try to argue it. anyone who has a problem with intelligent design needs to get with the times.
You missed the point of my first post. The point is that adding “God” to the beginning of the theory makes it totally redundant. Because its the complexity that we are trying to understand. Throwing an omnipitent being in the mix at the beginning solves nothing, because we must assume that this being was at least as complex as what he created… therefore loss of explanation, and we’re right back at the starting point.
Now if you say… “well thats just it, scientists are trying to explain God”… or “well then it could be perfectly true that god created the big bang, and ipso facto we gotta explain the Omnipitent Fucker”… The thing is, that nowhere in our attempt to describe nature does a omnipitent being suddenly show up in equations. The goal of any good scientific theory is parsimony, and so we take what we know and step by tiny step we analyze it, and we try to be careful not to assume anything, always making sure we understand one layer before moving onto the next. And soo as I stated at the beginning one big assumption doesn’t do anything for us. Just puts us back in the melting pot.
I grant that it is “possible” that god created the universe… but I also grant that its possible that gremlins had sex with your mother, and that A unicorn sodimized your father in another dimension while he was tripping on LSD in the 60’s… But I have no evidence to justify these “possibilities” so it would be rather silly for me to assume them, and I’d have to geuss that if I tried to explain an aspect of nature based on these assumptions people wouldn’t just call me silly, but insane.
Anybody that has a problem with intelligent design… I thank you for your sanity, in these all to turbulent times.
well your right, that idea is in fact completely illogical, but it seems to work for most believers.
others however have adopted theories that God is infact our entire universe, and is infinite.
however this leaves not much room for God as an omnipotent being.
we will always be back at start. there is no further explaining God other then what believers call ‘faith’.
and yet we all do it every second of our lives 
plus, if you go along with that sort of reasoning, you really can’t be certain about hume’s logic either… it’s just another product of the human mind so…
hume, science, religion,…
it’s all bullshit anyway ^^
I can’t say I agree FM. Science serves a purpose, at a particular level of thought. As do assumptions of divinity or omnipotence, at a particular level of thought.
If, for the scientific minded, the Big Bang was virtually all encompassing in it’s ability to accurately predict the singularity of creative event, then the plethoric and never ending “theories”, which change with each “generation” of scientists, would no longer persist.
This would lead to the final TOE, and all discussion could be dispensed with, in finality.
The reason some here are positing that scientific “truth” is a fallacy, is not because of a stretch of reason that the natural laws change, it’s the fact that within the context of all the laws, as guiding the events, including all the variables, no absolute certainty can be given as an outcome, every single time.
Change is irrevocable, and unforseeable, although it is a known occurence. Hence, absolute scientific truth cannot be asserted.
In this way, science can no more exclude metaphysics, than the converse being true. Whatever definition one chooses, the most common one is that it is “faith”, in either discipline.
Very Good Imp. Hence, I am a Deist.
Smiles,
aspacia 
I have something to add!
The big bang Theory- Super Simplified
There were a bunch of gasses and materials swirling around. Then a spark happened, and made the Universe.
The real question is not how was the Universe created, but what made that spark.
Sorry I actually meant to reply to this. Aspacia’s post reminded me of it. We humans are rational creatures, we must be you see because it was “we humans” who created “rationality”. Now there may be different levels of rationality, but I have no doubt that the dumbest, most ignorant act of intentionality you have witnessed has some sort of human rationale behind it. I love Ainslie’s “Breakdown of Will”, and his theory of hyperbolic discounting(which if you haven’t been introduced to it solves all of the problems with utility theory) . the realization that we are hardwired to discount hyperbolically explains much of supposed “irrationality”. To put it utterly and totally simply, where we see irrationality, is where some reward driven homunculi, or self if you will, has won the internal prisoners dillemma among selves. This person is discounting ‘Irrationally’ according our exponential view point, and his long term interests. We often say after our appetite is satiated, and the need for reward quelled that “I wish I wouldn’t have done that”, but this state of mind is a result of having done “that” and the appetite now being satiated.
To make a long story short, at the time of the “irrational” act, one was in fact acting quite rationally if one was discounting hyperbolically. We know that it is most benificial to act exponentially, but unfortunately nature wired us to favour immediate reward. Its not hard to see why looking back. A little bit of food now is better then a fiest in three weeks.
Now as for it all being thrown out, because of the induction fallacy…“there is no truth” realizations… and the like, especially those nhilistic observations founded on some realization of the nature of time. Why does the induction fallacy not matter to me? why do I not really care if the world is totally and utterly deterministic?? Because quiet simply: If it were any other way we wouldn’t be here. Time and the nature of man are quiet intermingled. We can discard the induction fallacy pretty simply by realizing…well… if things really did fundamentally change the next second… the speed of light, gravity, or the cosmological constant… well ladies and germs, we wouldn’t be here to worry about the magnificient event anyways. We wouldn’t be there to say “HAHAHA!! Rember the induction fallacy!! You see it all really was useless”. So I’ll take the risk in making the assumption that the laws of nature won’t just up in change the next second, while taking a bit of pleasure in the fact that “they could” an idea that gives me a little elbow room in the contemplation of Free will.