>What are the metaphysical assumptions of current science?
These are the assumptions:
The problem of induction isn't a problem for some reason.
Empiricism is accurate.
Mathematical realism is true.
Group opinion (peer review) is a legitimate means of discerning reality.
Positivism is accurate.
Repeat apparent occurrences of events means those events are legitimate and real.
Objects maintain identity over time.
Having a doctorate means something of value.
Scientists also reject that value statements are legitimate even though they use them all the time.
Atheists have replaced ''God'' with ''The bigbang''. Atheists have never obseverd a bigbang, they have never replicated it, and yet they said it existed. Christians never witnessed God,and yet they say God exists. The best part is that each one of those God and Bigbang leads to inchorent views....
>first there was nothing
>then suddenly, out of this nothingness, everything came to exist. btw this is against all laws of physics which we so adore, as it breaks the conservation of energy and the principle of causality
>then from this initial universe which was just tiny subatomic particles, in a few billions years stars and planets and galaxies were created somehow
>then one on of these planets, earth, somehow, out of a bunch of random molecules in a primordial soup, life started, actual living beings came to be created from this molecules
>then a few billions years after that, through evolutions, these primal living beings became sentient, advanced creatures capable of contemplating their own existence
I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.
Guess which theory is true according to ''them''
theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth
theory 2: humans descent from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fish today dont become monkeys and monkeys today dont become humans, just trust me bro
hm
These are the assumptions:
The problem of induction isn't a problem for some reason.
Empiricism is accurate.
Mathematical realism is true.
Group opinion (peer review) is a legitimate means of discerning reality.
Positivism is accurate.
Repeat apparent occurrences of events means those events are legitimate and real.
Objects maintain identity over time.
Having a doctorate means something of value.
Scientists also reject that value statements are legitimate even though they use them all the time.
Atheists have replaced ''God'' with ''The bigbang''. Atheists have never obseverd a bigbang, they have never replicated it, and yet they said it existed. Christians never witnessed God,and yet they say God exists. The best part is that each one of those God and Bigbang leads to inchorent views....
>first there was nothing
>then suddenly, out of this nothingness, everything came to exist. btw this is against all laws of physics which we so adore, as it breaks the conservation of energy and the principle of causality
>then from this initial universe which was just tiny subatomic particles, in a few billions years stars and planets and galaxies were created somehow
>then one on of these planets, earth, somehow, out of a bunch of random molecules in a primordial soup, life started, actual living beings came to be created from this molecules
>then a few billions years after that, through evolutions, these primal living beings became sentient, advanced creatures capable of contemplating their own existence
I am amazed how atheists have turned genes into the new god. Make me laff when they say their dad was a fish too.
Guess which theory is true according to ''them''
theory 1 : humans descent from humans, which is verified at every human birth
theory 2: humans descent from a fish, then a monkey, yet it was never observed and fish today dont become monkeys and monkeys today dont become humans, just trust me bro
hm
