I would like to hear arguments for what science knows of what happened before the first thing science says happened.
That is the proposal.Is this meant to be a debate proposal? If not it's in the wrong section.
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.As far as your question, I believe science says we should say we do not know.
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.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 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.
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 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.
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.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?
Have you ever read "The first thought in three forms?" it is presented here..I would like to hear arguments for what science knows of what happened before the first thing science says happened.