The starting point is observation and imagination/interpretation play a part only after observation. A person can imagine all they want, if the product of their imagination is not the result of an observation it will never turn into a scientific theory. Science doesn't have a "path", it is just a tool that works, nothing more... All discoveries are based on scientific data. All of them, no exceptions.
Can you give me examples of wild ideas/accidents that turned into scientific theory, without prior scientific data or observations?
Everything is subjective so everything is possible? Might as well stop asking questions since there are an infinite number of possible answers... Attributing equal values to all possibilities accomplishes nothing and leads nowhere. You need to have a starting point, an anchor and that anchor is the observed reality.
Good one, let's not dismiss anything. If scientists were busy disproving my Universe vomiting druken Gods, science would reach unknown hights...
Example of idea with no basis in reality = ? . Example of invention with no basis in reality = ?.
No my friend, missles do not exist because someone had a random idea based on nothing. They exist because of observations which lead to hypotheses which lead to scientific theories. The idea of a missle appeared after the scientific data.
Your example is science fiction, emphasis on "science". You took concepts that are proven to exist thanks to science, such as "ship", "city" and "speed of light" and imagined something else. There's nothing wrong with that and it's indeed how progress is usually made. But the soul/God/imaginay tea cup have no such basis so there's no rational reason to give them credit. It's wrong to dismiss one of the latter concepts only when it gains some kind of basis in reality, i.e. observation.
Not saying the Creator doesn't exist. I'm saying it has the same chance to exist as the infinity of druken Universe vomiting Creators. And since there are so many such possibilities and none of them have a basis in reality, there's no reason to consider them when trying to understand reality.
In an odd kind of way, what you are proposing is that a God/Creator does exist, but science has not made him/it yet. Let me ask this - do you think time travel, or faster than light travel is possible? As a person who likes science I am guessing you dont. That is because we think fundamental laws of physics preclude it - in the very same way I expect a caveman would feel the same about travelling at 500MPH, 35,000 up in the air inside a metal bird. The thing with knowledge is it exists, it is out there if a person has a receptive and open mind and the ability/tools to discover it. What I am saying is we currently dont have either with regards to our Creation. Therefore, disbelieving a Creator exists is premature. It is a bit like trying to prove photosynthesis without sunlight, or trying to produce a sonic boom event on a push bike. Doomed to failure by limitations of the method and tools. Also, I suspect there are some things that can only be seen or found with certain tools or using certain methods. Without these we are blind to them. Perhaps, just perhaps, faith is the tool needed and without it we will be blind to any Creator that may exist. Sounds far fetched doesen't it? I'm sure the caveman in the aeroplane would agree
I have no problem with imaginary concepts based on scientific data and observation, my beef is with imaginary concepts based on absolutely nothing. Even if our current tools are not enough to provide all the answers, the future tools will be based on existing ones and then we'll get more answers. Faith is not a tool, it is the b(a)stard son of hope and fear and it will never provide any answers because it already is the answer: God did it.
If the cavemen had held on to faith in animal gods, we'd still be running after them in the savannah. Luckily, they used their keen observational skill which lead to rudimentary science/technology and, much later, airplanes.
It is a proven scientific data that we are a species that branched off from the other primates and shares a common ancestor with them. Your feelings on the subject are, respectfully, irrelevant.
If you're so concerned about the validity of scientific theories, I suggest you stop using: cars, computers, medicine, clothes etc. Next time you're in car, you may end up in orbit if the theory of mavity is wrong, you can never be sure, right? Wrong. Evolution is solid and, at worst, it's an aproximation of a wider yet undiscovered theory but even if this latter theory is proved to exist, evolution will still be valid.
Fiction, based on scientific data and observation. Unlike, you know..
I categorically say ideas based on nothing are a pointless waste of time when trying to understand the nature of reality. If your Creator idea has some kind of basis in reality, I will stop dismissing it.
Cold fusion is indeed a wild idea with no foundation on observation, to a caveman - what you're saying here is important. Now take it further - the caveman is now close to fusion, how did he get there? Did he get there by aiming at it from the start? No becase it was a pointless wild idea at the time that woud've lead nowhere.
He got there by making incremental steps based on observation and science.
Similarly it is pointless to bring up God when trying to understand reality now because it is a pointless, dead end. Instead, we need to make incremetal steps, use science and see where it leads us. There are no shortcuts.
God is what your imagination is capable of creating now. In fact, it's very similar to what the cavemen were thinking (animal Gods). Did we find any animal Gods? No, we found planets, moons, stars and black holes which, to be honest, are much more interesting. I don't know what we may find in the future but i suspect it won't be anything similar to what the cavemen were imagining so, in reality, it is you who are short sighted by insisting on such a primitive, boring idea.
Last edited:
