Question for presups...

[cvanwey]

How do you know we don't yet fully know things?

Simple, present your best piece of evidence and proof for your very specific believed God? At which point, my prior statement will be justified

What negative was I asking you to prove?

From post #73:

"(unless you have some evidence that there is no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.)"

You are asking me to proof a negative, just like my 'alien' story. You are also shifting the burden of proof. Again, like my 'alien' story.

And if absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, doesn't that include evidence for God's existence as well?

Concluding God, because I cannot come up with an alternate explanation, does not grant you victorious by default. God is not the default position one takes, when the answer is unknown yet, or even never fully known. Lack in evidence does not point to Yahweh. But instead, only direct evidence points to Yahweh.

God does not win, by process of limited elimination.

Ok, no zing. How do you know it was produced without presupposition or bias?

Presupposition 101 sir...

Read the Bible as already true, and find 'evidence' to make it fit.

Science 101...

Make hypothesis, collect evidence, and see if collected evidence supports hypothesis or demonstrates an alternate conclusion.

So basically:

Presups: Presume the Bible is already true, then find correlating evidence only, while ignoring, spinning, rationalizing, or rejecting refuting evidence.

Science: Make an educated guess, then collect evidence to validate or reject the educated guess. When enough overwhelming evidence is then established, then it may become scientific theory, only after enough peer review, from all opposing viewpoints, have no choice but to conclude a unified answer without presuppposition, bias, or dogma.

Also, I would like you to respond to this if you don't mind:
How do you know we don't yet fully know things?

I hate to beat the dead horse here, but you keep asking...

Why do we KNOW the earth is not flat? I'll tell you...

Too much corroborating evidence has since been collected. Enough so, that anyone whom ever again states the earth might actually be flat, would be in serious jeopardy of avoidance to known reality. As stated prior, yes, we have many 'flat-earthers'. Yes, we have many sub-sects of 'beliefs'. The question is... What is the motivation for their specific beliefs?.??..? Cough cough, 'the Bible'... The presupposition of the Bible is what fuels the continued beliefs, that the earth is 'flat.'

Presupposition is strong for some

What negative was I asking you to prove?

Answered above, as stated from post #73

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I'm the one arguing that the universe didn't exist at the Big Bang

Is that really all you're arguing for, or are you intentionally obfuscating the additional premise of an ex nihilo creation event? Because it sure seems like you are.

You disagree that the consensus of Scientists agree that the evidence supports a 'time' where there was no space, energy, matter or time during the 'birth' of the universe?

No, I do not disagree with that, nor am I convinced that is actually what you intend to argue for. I think what you intend to argue for is an ex nihilo creation event, but you are conflating that with Big Bang cosmology. They aren't the same thing.

What does ex nihilo mean to you?

A cause acting on nothing. As opposed to ex materia - a cause acting on something pre-existing.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Correct. Which is what just about any logician would tell you as well, unless they subscribe to some form of solipsism.

Just like if human minds ceased to exist, water would still freeze when cold enough, even if the concept of 'temperature' and the means of measuring it weren't there.

The statement 'A=A" does not magically cause things to be themselves. It does not hold reality in check. It is a statement about reality. It is descriptive, not prescriptive, just like the laws of physics.

My worldview distinguishes between reality and statements about reality. Does yours?

Of course, but then again, how often is it helpful to separate the two? Without the laws of logic, laws of physics, and accurate description, the Scientific method useful to description and predication of objective reality, fails in interpretation of said reality. Is it helpful to separate descriptive and prescriptive statements about reality in your worldview?

I do have a helpful use and example of it from my worldview. Your worldview negates the descriptive reality of the God of Christianity, but it does not negate the prescriptive reality of His existence, congrats and thank you for that.

I'm glad you agree, but it's contradictory of you to do so. You propose that all of reality - both physical and conceptual - finds its primacy in a mind. Far from solving any problem of subjectivity, it blows up to the size of the universe.

Incorrect use and assumptions. Because you see, God exists objectively outside of my mind, He knows everything exhaustively and perfectly, He is immutable in His nature, both physical and conceptual reality as we know it originate from the mind of God and have their grounding in the mind of God. As such God Himself the Almighty Creator is an infallible inerreant interpreter of reality. What’s more the God of Christianity is not a silent God, He interacts with and has revealed Himself at various times in different manners to different people of His choosing. Even more He does not leave men to their devices, He works with men by His Spirit, leading men into truth and therefore true interpretation of the reality He created. In philosophical terms this can be refered to as a revelational epistemology, where knowledge is dependent upon Deity.

Again, only if you are incapable of distinguishing between reality and statements about reality.

Obviously I am able to distinguish between statements denying the existence of God and the reality of the existence of God.

If there were no minds, nothing would be 'described' at all. Nature would simply be.

Except your worldview excludes the mind of God which has and always exist for all eternity.

Which is only a problem if you believe logical axioms, the laws of physics etc., are prescriptive, rather than descriptive. Do you?

Your problem is in accounting for logical axioms, the axiom of the axioms, necessarily so, He simply is, I AM THAT I AM.

Everything outside of the existence of the great I AM is created, laws of nature and empirical facts. It is in the immutable omniscient mind of God for which our descriptions of them derive, because in the image of God man was made a rational creature. Your view of the origins of a rational creature cannot account for the rationality any more than it could account for irrationality of a creature.

No, ad hoc-ing 'immutability' onto your god does not magically make a reality predicated on him 'objective'.

Here you do not take into account that the God of Christianity has revealed Himself, nor His revelation about the true nature of man.

The laws of logic, physics, etc. are evidences of the immutability of God, because these laws as we perceive them are themselves immutable. Denial of the immutable nature of the laws of logic is to slip down the slippery slope of solipsism.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Of course, but then again, how often is it helpful to separate the two?

When is it helpful to separate reality from statements about reality? How about, 100% of the time. You may as well ask how often is it helpful to distinguish an illustration of a rhinocerous from an actual rhinocerous. One is an artificial representation of something, the other is the real thing. Confusing the two would lead to cartoonish absurdity.

But I can understand why you would believe distinguishing between concepts and forms is unimportant. They are ultimately one and the same in your worldview - products of a single, supervening mind. Solipsism on a cosmic scale.

Without the laws of logic, laws of physics, and accurate description, the Scientific method useful to description and predication of objective reality, fails in interpretation of said reality. Is it helpful to separate descriptive and prescriptive statements about reality in your worldview?

Yes, for exactly the same reason it is helpful to distinguish between a drawing of a rhinocerous and an actual rhinocerous. They are categorically different things.

I do have a helpful use and example of it from my worldview. Your worldview negates the descriptive reality of the God of Christianity, but it does not negate the prescriptive reality of His existence, congrats and thank you for that.

It negates both, actually. Imagine any god concept you want. They are all irrelevant to my worldview.

Incorrect use and assumptions. Because you see, God exists objectively outside of my mind

That's trivial, and impertinent. All things exist objectively outside your mind. That's precisely what the word 'objective' entails.

The relevant point is that you don't exist outside his mind. You, along with the rest of reality, are subject to his mind and its whims, which you have no reliable means of predicting or even gleaning in the first place. Subjectivity in your worldview isn't merely intra or interpersonal. It's cosmic, and all encompassing.

Your problem is in accounting for logical axioms, the axiom of the axioms, necessarily so, He simply is, I AM THAT I AM.

Everything outside of the existence of the great I AM is created, laws of nature and empirical facts. It is in the immutable omniscient mind of God for which our descriptions of them derive, because in the image of God man was made a rational creature. Your view of the origins of a rational creature cannot account for the rationality any more than it could account for irrationality of a creature.

You're confused.

You are the one who purports to derive an apprehension of logic, the laws of nature etc., from Yahweh.

Therefor, it is your problem, not mine, if he doesn't exist. Gods, including Yahweh, are utterly irrelevant to my worldview.

Here you do not take into account that the God of Christianity has revealed Himself, nor His revelation about the true nature of man.

I am not in the habit of taking vacuous naked assertions into account, so of course I didn't do that.

The laws of logic, physics, etc. are evidences of the immutability of God, because these laws as we perceive them are themselves immutable. Denial of the immutable nature of the laws of logic is to slip down the slippery slope of solipsism.

Which would be a huge problem for me, if I believed these laws - and indeed, all of reality - derived from a supervening mind. In that case, they would necessarily be subjective, not objective.

Thankfully, I don't believe that. You do. So it's a problem for you, not me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Simple, present your best piece of evidence and proof for your very specific believed God? At which point, my prior statement will be justified

So you were referring to God?

From post #73:

"(unless you have some evidence that there is no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.)"

You are asking me to proof a negative, just like my 'alien' story. You are also shifting the burden of proof. Again, like my 'alien' story.

I was responding to your assertion about there being no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.

Concluding God, because I cannot come up with an alternate explanation, does not grant you victorious by default. God is not the default position one takes, when the answer is unknown yet, or even never fully known. Lack in evidence does not point to Yahweh. But instead, only direct evidence points to Yahweh.

God does not win, by process of limited elimination.

I agree. However, logically if logic is above Mankind and are universal, transcendent and objective. They are not physical but conceptual in nature and mankind is not necessary for them to exist. Laws of logic are laws of the mind, and in being so it is more logical for them to be from an intelligent being rather than an mindless universe.

Presupposition 101 sir...

Just a note, I am female.

Read the Bible as already true, and find 'evidence' to make it fit.

You are assuming that is the case and nothing that I've said should lead you to that assumption.

Science 101...

Make hypothesis, collect evidence, and see if collected evidence supports hypothesis or demonstrates an alternate conclusion.

Assumption again, you don't know what presuppositions one begins with and no one is immune.

So basically:

Presups: Presume the Bible is already true, then find correlating evidence only, while ignoring, spinning, rationalizing, or rejecting refuting evidence.

Science: Make an educated guess, then collect evidence to validate or reject the educated guess. When enough overwhelming evidence is then established, then it may become scientific theory, only after enough peer review, from all opposing viewpoints, have no choice but to conclude a unified answer without presuppposition, bias, or dogma.

Painting with a broad brush, I think.

I hate to beat the dead horse here, but you keep asking...

Why do we KNOW the earth is not flat? I'll tell you...

Too much corroborating evidence has since been collected. Enough so, that anyone whom ever again states the earth might actually be flat, would be in serious jeopardy of avoidance to known reality. As stated prior, yes, we have many 'flat-earthers'. Yes, we have many sub-sects of 'beliefs'. The question is... What is the motivation for their specific beliefs?.??..? Cough cough, 'the Bible'... The presupposition of the Bible is what fuels the continued beliefs, that the earth is 'flat.'

Presupposition is strong for some

I am not asking why or how we know the earth is not flat. Presupposition is strong on both sides.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Is that really all you're arguing for, or are you intentionally obfuscating the additional premise of an ex nihilo creation event? Because it sure seems like you are.

A creation event as specified by the Bible does not preclude multi-universes or other possibilities. This universe had a beginning that was absent of matter, space, energy and time and that is all that is needed.

No, I do not disagree with that, nor am I convinced that is actually what you intend to argue for. I think what you intend to argue for is an ex nihilo creation event, but you are conflating that with Big Bang cosmology. They aren't the same thing.

How are they not the same thing?

A cause acting on nothing. As opposed to ex materia - a cause acting on something pre-existing.

I believe that a pre-existing universe for an example is no deterrent for Biblical Creation.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

When is it helpful to separate reality from statements about reality? How about, 100% of the time. You may as well ask how often is it helpful to distinguish an illustration of a rhinocerous from an actual rhinocerous. One is an artificial representation of something, the other is the real thing. Confusing the two would lead to cartoonish absurdity.

But I can understand why you would believe distinguishing between concepts and forms is unimportant. They are ultimately one and the same in your worldview - products of a single, supervening mind. Solipsism on a cosmic scale.

Nice strawman, well constructed and exaggerated rhetorical fashion. Let’s be clear, I did not use the word “unimportant”, distinctions are always important, however when you undermine the interpretive aspect between human minds and reality, you also undermine the role of beliefs and axioms in the interpretation of descriptive and prescriptive reality. Separating description and prescription, one could in every instance do just as your strawman suggests and call it reality.

Yes, for exactly the same reason it is helpful to distinguish between a drawing of a rhinocerous and an actual rhinocerous. They are categorically different things.

And by separating description from prescription you make no distinction of categories. Both are necessary to make distinctions. A drawing of a rhino is a representation of reality, it is analogical to an actual rhino.

It negates both, actually. Gods of any and all description are utterly irrelevant to my worldview, including yours.

And how exactly would you know this, without being omniscient yourself?

That's trivial, and impertinent. All things exist objectively outside your mind. That's precisely what the word 'objective' entails.

Trivial? What a slap in the face to philosophers throughout the history of philosophy. Clearly it is relevant to the whole knowledge discussion, and whether we can truly know anything with certainty or only in degrees without any certainty. This whole time in your replies you assume your replies are not just subjectively true, but objectively true, that is certainly true, and true whether any minds are present to perceive this.

The relevant point is that you don't exist outside his mind. You, along with the rest of reality, are subject to his mind and its whims, which you have no reliable means of predicting or even gleaning in the first place. Subjectivity in your worldview isn't merely intra or interpersonal. It's cosmic, and all encompassing.

Sorry but I do not have the mind in vats problem you’re suggesting, it is a philosphical problem though for the subjectivist such as yourself, unable to justify objective reality outside of yourself, of course you cannot consistently live as though pure subjectivism aligned with reality because it does not and cannot and you know this every waking day. As for my worldview, it can account for both subjectivism and objectivism in harmony with one another.

You are the one who purports to derive an apprehension of logic, the laws of nature etc., from Yahweh.

Therefor, it is your problem, not mine, if he doesn't exist. Gods, including Yahweh, are utterly irrelevant to my worldview.

Except it’s not a problem as I have explained, it’s a solution to a problem you have, but I understand the inadequacy of mere words and intellectual assentation to propositions.

Which would be a huge problem for me, if I believed these laws - and indeed, all of reality - derived from a supervening mind. In that case, they would necessarily be subjective, not objective.

Thankfully, I don't believe that. You do. So it's a problem for you, not me.

The problem is that you are commiting the formal fallacy of equivocation, by making no distinction between the mind of the Creator and the creature. It is what your argument rests on without it you have no argument.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Nice strawman, well constructed and exaggerated rhetorical fashion. Let’s be clear, I did not use the word “unimportant”, distinctions are always important, however when you undermine the interpretive aspect between human minds and reality, you also undermine the role of beliefs and axioms in the interpretation of descriptive and prescriptive reality. Separating description and prescription, one could in every instance do just as your strawman suggests and call it reality.

And by separating description from prescription you make no distinction of categories. Both are necessary to make distinctions. A drawing of a rhino is a representation of reality, it is analogical to an actual rhino.

What on earth are you talking about?

'By separating description from prescription you make no distinction of categories'? That's exactly what separating them entails - that they are distinct from one another.

'A drawing of a rhino is a representation of reality, it is analogical to an actual rhino'? Yeah, that's effectively what I said - concepts and forms are distinct from one another.

I don't think we disagree on this point, and I don't think I made a straw man, just maybe misunderstood your position. But I am going to remember that accusation, because you make two massive ones later in this same post.

And how exactly would you know this, without being omniscient yourself?

It does not require omniscience to be aware of one's own worldview.

Trivial? What a slap in the face to philosophers throughout the history of philosophy. Clearly it is relevant to the whole knowledge discussion, and whether we can truly know anything with certainty or only in degrees without any certainty. This whole time in your replies you assume your replies are not just subjectively true, but objectively true, that is certainly true, and true whether any minds are present to perceive this.

Now that's a strawman.

I didn't say objectivity is trivial. I said it's trivial to point out that Yahweh exists 'objectively outside your mind', because everything outside your mind exists objectively.

Sorry but I do not have the mind in vats problem you’re suggesting,

You sure don't, and I'm not suggesting you do. What I am suggesting is that you have a mind-in-mind problem. Your mind, as well as the universe it occupies, are entirely subject to the operations of a single supervening god-mind.

it is a philosphical problem though for the subjectivist such as yourself,

I'm not a 'subjectivist'. I don't know of a single person who describes themselves as such, because 'subjectivism' is a blanket term for a large school of thought addressing many individual topics. Maybe you meant 'solipsist'. Which I am also not.

I know that's inconvenient for your favorite brand of apologetics, but that's your problem, not anyone else's. If your apologetic is incapable of addressing what people actually believe, perhaps you should abandon it and find a different one.

unable to justify objective reality outside of yourself, of course you cannot consistently live as though pure subjectivism aligned with reality because it does not and cannot and you know this every waking day.

Here you resort to the real meat and potatoes of presuppositional apologetics - simply nakedly assert the epistemological superiority of your worldview. You've clearly studied the playbook. You know all the right tactics that a lot of people who are unfamiliar with presuppositional apologetics often fall for.

I won't. Understand me - I am not going to just grant you that high ground, a propos of nothing whatsoever. You don't get to just start there and expect me to meet you. That's not how this works.

As for my worldview, it can account for both subjectivism and objectivism in harmony with one another.

No it can't. In your worldview, the totality of existence is the product of a mind, and therefor subject to that mind. Any and all aspects of the universe within your worldview, both conceptual and physical, can be changed at any second by the supervening cosmic mind that governs it, and you have no means gleaning when that happens or how it will manifest. Both objectivity and intrapersonal subjectivity would be impossible in such a universe.

Sorry, van Til. Far from 'borrowing' from your worldview, I dismiss it out of hand.

Except it’s not a problem as I have explained, it’s a solution to a problem you have,

It's not a 'solution' to anything. Quote the opposite. It would make a complete mess of logic and science if it were true. A universe that is subject to the operations of a supervening god-mind can have any aspect of it - conceptual or physical - altered, rendered, or destroyed at any given moment, and we would have no means of gleaning when or how that might manifest. Logic and science - and really, day to day life in general - would be impossible in such a universe.

I'm glad there is no good reason to suspect we live in such a universe.

The problem is that you are commiting the formal fallacy of equivocation, by making no distinction between the mind of the Creator and the creature.

I can read this two ways. You might mean 'no distinction between the mind of the creator and the mind of the creature'.

In which case, no, you are committing the formal fallacy of special pleading, by asserting that your proposed god-mind is somehow 'objective' instead of subjective. 'Objective mind' is an oxymoron.

Or you might mean just as it says, 'no distinction between the mind of the Creator and the creature'.

In which case I will say, if you and the entire universe you occupy are a product of this god-mind, and subject to its continued influence, then it's not a helpful distinction to your predicament. Also I will say, that's not an equivocation fallacy.

 

[Eudaimonist]

It is necessary for logic to exist prior to one using it.

No, it isn't necessary at all.

Logic isn't some sort of entity unto itself. It is epistemological, not metaphysical. It is necessary only that the method of logic does its proper cognitive job once one does use it. That only requires that there is some realm of existence that has a nature that can be identified, and that the method of logic used is something that is appropriate to the workings of the mind of a being with the power of abstract thought.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it isn't necessary at all.

Logic isn't some sort of entity unto itself. It is necessary only that the method of logic does its proper job once one does use it. That only requires that there is some realm of existence that has a nature that can be identified, and that the method of logic used is something that is appropriate to the brain of a being with the power of abstract thought.


eudaimonia,

Mark

It is necessary to understand the realm of existence, to 'think' at all. I believe that logic is interwoven throughout the universe and it isn't restricted to abstract thought or mankind for that matter.

Edited to add: Why do you think that logic is epistemological rather than metaphysical?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

How are they not the same thing?

Because Big Bang cosmology, describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. It doesn't say anything at all about an ex nihilo creation event. That is why they are not the same thing.

I believe that a pre-existing universe for an example is no deterrent for Biblical Creation.

Really? So Yahweh reordered pre-existing material, instead of willing it into existence, ex nihilo?

I don't necessarily think there's a problem with that, in and of itself. It's just...odd of you to say. The only people I've encountered who believe that are Mormons.
http://www.mrm.org/origins-universe

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because Big Bang cosmology, describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. It doesn't say anything at all about an ex nihilo creation event. That is why they are not the same thing.

It doesn't, how do you know?

Really? So Yahweh reordered pre-existing material, instead of willing it into existence, ex nihilo?

What pre-existing material and where did it come from?

I don't necessarily think there's a problem with that, in and of itself. It's just...odd of you to say. The only people I've encountered who believe that are Mormons.
http://www.mrm.org/origins-universe

I don't find it odd to think that God would have created many universes. I have no idea whether or not that is true but I don't think it odd. Edited to add: I should have read your link before commenting but....I didn't. Our universe had a beginning. Light, matter, time, space all of it came into existence at its creation just as the Bible states. That doesn't mean that other universes are not possible... all we know from the Bible is that our universe was caused by God and the elements that came to be due to that.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It doesn't, how do you know?

Because I've studied the subject.

What pre-existing material and where did it come from?

You tell me, if it's what you believe in. If not, it's moot.

I don't find it odd to think that God would have created many universes. I have no idea whether or not that is true but I don't think it odd. Edited to add: I should have read your link before commenting but....I didn't. Our universe had a beginning. Light, matter, time, space all of it came into existence at its creation just as the Bible states. That doesn't mean that other universes are not possible... all we know from the Bible is that our universe was caused by God and the elements that came to be due to that.

I believe you believe that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because I've studied the subject.

Didn't you claim that there was no one not Davies or anyone else who knows what was pre-planck?

You tell me, if it's what you believe in. If not, it's moot.

Oh, so that was not something you were promoting as a hypothesis?

I believe you believe that.

Ok.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Didn't you claim that there was no one not Davies or anyone else who knows what was pre-planck?

I am not claiming to know what was pre-Planck time.

What I said was, Big Bang cosmology does not necessitate an ex nihilo creation event, because Big Bang cosmology says nothing at all about anything pre-Planck time. And I'm right.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I am not claiming to know what was pre-Planck time.

What I said was, Big Bang cosmology does not necessitate an ex nihilo creation event, because Big Bang cosmology says nothing at all about anything pre-Planck time. And I'm right.

It doesn't necessitate an ex nihilo creation event, but it doesn't preclude it and your claim was they were not the same. But how would you know that?

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

It doesn't necessitate an ex nihilo creation event, but it doesn't preclude it and your claim was they were not the same. But how would you know that?

I answered that already. You're talking in circles. You may as well be asking me how do I know that A is not B. Because A is A, and B is B. The Big Bang Theory is The Big Bang Theory. An ex nihilo creation event is an ex nihilo creation event. That's why.

 

[cvanwey]

So you were referring to God?



I was responding to your assertion about there being no Biblical God and that He had nothing to do with the Bible.



I agree. However, logically if logic is above Mankind and are universal, transcendent and objective. They are not physical but conceptual in nature and mankind is not necessary for them to exist. Laws of logic are laws of the mind, and in being so it is more logical for them to be from an intelligent being rather than an mindless universe.


Just a note, I am female.

You are assuming that is the case and nothing that I've said should lead you to that assumption.


Assumption again, you don't know what presuppositions one begins with and no one is immune.

So basically:

Painting with a broad brush, I think.




I am not asking why or how we know the earth is not flat. Presupposition is strong on both sides.

My apologize for 'assuming' your gender That was my 'presupposition' I guess.

At the end of the day, the 'general philosophy' behind two methods of making a conclusion is as follows:

Presupposition - 'a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.'

Scientific method - 'principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.'

In science, the 'presupposition' ends at the hypothesis. The hypothesis is either later confirmed or rejected. In theology, all concepts are considered 'absolute truth', and is to not be rejected, but instead rationalized, re-explained, inject a differing 'context' to uphold the verse, etc, if the investigated conclusion does not appear to align with the presupposition. You know... The usual 'apologetics' kind of stuff.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I answered that already. You're talking in circles. You may as well be asking me how do I know that A is not B. Because A is A, and B is B. The Big Bang Theory is The Big Bang Theory. An ex nihilo creation event is an ex nihilo creation event. That's why.

Not at all. The Big Bang is an event and it was the creation of our universe. The ex nihilo creation was an event that was the creation of our universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

My apologize for 'assuming' your gender That was my 'presupposition' I guess.

It happens quite often on here. No need to apologize just wanted you to be aware.

At the end of the day, the 'general philosophy' behind two methods of making a conclusion is as follows:

Presupposition - 'a thing tacitly assumed beforehand at the beginning of a line of argument or course of action.'

Scientific method - 'principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.'

In science, the 'presupposition' ends at the hypothesis. The hypothesis is either later confirmed or rejected. In theology, all concepts are considered 'absolute truth', and is to not be rejected, but instead rationalized, re-explained, inject a differing 'context' to uphold the verse, etc, if the investigated conclusion does not appear to align with the presupposition. You know... The usual 'apologetics' kind of stuff.

The difference here is that I agree with the Scientific method and it is usually is without bias but there have been times when that was not the case. That being said, I love Science and feel it is the best way to learn about our world.

Unfortunately, I think you are somewhat biased against Theology.