What happened before that?

[ScottA]

I would like to hear arguments for what science knows of what happened before the first thing science says happened.

 

[elopez]

Is this meant to be a debate proposal? If not it's in the wrong section.

As far as your question, I believe science says we should say we do not know.

 

[Cute Tink]

I just want to make sure I understand the question right:

You want to know what science says happened before the first thing it says happened. Example:

Science: This is the first thing that happened.
You: What do you say happened before that?
Science: Nothing. That's the first thing that happened.

Is there a debate there or would you like to clarify.

 

[ScottA]

Is this meant to be a debate proposal? If not it's in the wrong section.

That is the proposal.

As far as your question, I believe science says we should say we do not know.

I agree. But, the point is, that it is assumed and expected that science "knows" everything they put out. That their "findings" are confirmation of truth, rather than a step in some direction of attempting to understand. I would venture to say, that if science had not used the word "findings" all of these centuries, but had used the more-correct term "theory"...humanity would be in a much better place.

It's like the claims of what is good for you, as opposed to what is bad for you, eggs, etc. If science was honest in their "findings" they would come right out and say, "We THINK eggs are bad for you.", etc.. But why change? They have everyone duped into believing both claims, for and against. Sweet deal they got...but it ain't honest.

Debatable? Not even. But, perhaps the honest will step up and say, "I/we don't know."

 

[ScottA]

I just want to make sure I understand the question right:

You want to know what science says happened before the first thing it says happened. Example:

Science: This is the first thing that happened.
You: What do you say happened before that?
Science: Nothing. That's the first thing that happened.

Is there a debate there or would you like to clarify.

Well, yes, I think there is a debate here. But only because I am convinced they have become accustom to seeing themselves as the last word on knowledge. Is it really debatable? Not even.

Anyway, yes, your example pretty much says it.

Oh...and if it comes to that, the next natural question would be for them to "ask" the same question...to which we "do" have an answer. Now I've said too much.

 

[Cute Tink]

Well, yes, I think there is a debate there. But only because I am convince they have become accustom to seeing themselves as the last word on knowledge. Is it really debatable? Not even.

Anyway, yes, your example pretty much says it.

Oh...and if it comes to that, the next natural question would be for them to "ask" the same question...to which we "do" have an answer. Now I've said too much.

I see this as being, at best, a circular discussion, rather than a debate. If something is found to be before what we think is the first thing, then clearly that would be the new first thing and you would probably then ask: what happened before that?

However, you do indicate that you believe science thinks it is the last word on knowledge, but I don't think that's true. They investigate the natural world and do their best to come up with theories that explain the facts. "We don't know" is actually a perfectly acceptable answer to science.

I also see that you do believe you have all the answers, thus making you the "last word on knowledge" and I know where this "debate" ultimately goes after all the circular, therefore, I wish you luck in finding a debate partner, but it will not be me.

 

[ScottA]

I see this as being, at best, a circular discussion, rather than a debate. If something is found to be before what we think is the first thing, then clearly that would be the new first thing and you would probably then ask: what happened before that?

However, you do indicate that you believe science thinks it is the last word on knowledge, but I don't think that's true. They investigate the natural world and do their best to come up with theories that explain the facts. "We don't know" is actually a perfectly acceptable answer to science.

I also see that you do believe you have all the answers, thus making you the "last word on knowledge" and I know where this "debate" ultimately goes after all the circular, therefore, I wish you luck in finding a debate partner, but it will not be me.

Perhaps you are correct. It is a weak debate proposal. And yet it is a fierce debate in real life. So why not discuss/debate it here?

I should have said science is [wrongfully] "viewed" or "given credit" for the last word on knowledge. And again, you are correct, they are NOT the last word. But we have gotten away from that being the correct observation.

I will say it again: THIS IS A FIERCE DEBATE IN REAL LIFE.

 

[brinny]

*subscribing*

 

[elopez]

That is the proposal.

That you want to debate someone on what was "before" creation? Specifically, someone who takes a scientific view of the question rather than a theological view?

 

[ScottA]

That you want to debate someone on what was "before" creation? Specifically, someone who takes a scientific view of the question rather than a theological view?

If the science-minded care to debate their way back far enough to where we can establish proper expertise on the origin of the universe...that would be good.

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

@elopez , @ScottA ; you guys want to go with this?

 

[elopez]

@elopez , @ScottA ; you guys want to go with this?

It seems he wants to debate one who does not hold to a theological view of this subject. If he did, and our views on the matter were contrasting, I would be.

 

[ScottA]

@elopez , @ScottA ; you guys want to go with this?

You mean...the Lager?

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

I'm having an ale right now!

 

[Jaxxi]

I would like to hear arguments for what science knows of what happened before the first thing science says happened.

Have you ever read "The first thought in three forms?" it is presented here..
Three Forms of First Thought (Trimorphic Protennoia) - Willis Barnstone - The Nag Hammadi Library

It is interesting.