Hume's Criticism Of The Kalam Cosmological Argument

However, the Catholic Church couples the Big Bang with an intervention of god. The Big Bang theory is the prevailing cosmological model of the universe from the earliest known periods through its subsequent large-scale evolution. The model accounts for the fact that the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state, and offers a comprehensive explanation for a broad range of phenomena, including the abundance of light elements, the cosmic microwave background, large scale structure and the findings by the astronomer Edwin Hubble (1889-1953 -Hubble’s laws). If the known laws of physics are extrapolated beyond where they are valid, there is a singularity. Modern measurements place this moment at approximately 13,8 billion years ago.

Instead, I suggest a new form of attitude—a combination of existentialism and creationism. The two origins of life 1.Naturalism Naturalism proposes that life begins with a stream of purposeless force—the big bang[1]. The big bang is treated by scientists as the beginning of space and time. Planets, lives are the natural results of big bang.

Therefore like what is written in theconversation.com, even after scientific theories are propagated into laws, new methods from new experiments will always be discovered which can always challenge them as long as one continues to doubt. The question now is, can science actually prove anything? According to American theoretical physicist, Richard Feynman, “Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain.” In science all ideas are “just” mere

Fine tuning refers to the precision of nature's physical constants, and the state in which the universe first began. The argument itself is broken down into several points so that finding an explanation might be possible. To introduce his argument, Susskind explains how there are some boundaries in physics that are not able to be determined by physical laws. When we think about the constant, we might begin to wonder whether or not God knew how much we needed this value in order to live. In fact, the value of the constant is so precise, that if changed at all, conditions would not be suitable for life on Earth.

As a counter argument it is faulty, and ultimately fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the traditional God exists and has an adequate reason for evil. In a court of law, the burden of proof falls onto the prosecution to prove their claim beyond a reasonable doubt while the defense counters their position by establishing some doubt. The prosecution can be seen as Craig as he claims the existence of a God, whereas Sinnott-Armstrong’s atheism only exists in relation to theism. Atheism is a response to theism but theism is an idea in itself, independent of atheism. In other words, without theism atheism would not exist, as such without a claim made by the Crown the defense is not needed.

This is called the fallacy of affirming the consequent, where false theories can make true predictions. An example would be the Ptolemaic model, whereby scientists assumes that the Earth is the centre of the universe, while the Sun and other planets orbit around it. This was believed by many scientists then as all the prediction they made were true after experimenting. It allowed astronomers to make accurate predictions of the motions of the planet, even more so compared to the Copernican theory, where it explains that the Sun is the centre of the universe, while the other planets orbit around it. There were 2 auxiliary hypotheses, which are assumptions, that scientists are making, that the Ptolemaic theory is true, while the Copernican theory is false, as scientists did not observe the angular difference in the stellar parallax.

The Fermi Paradox The Fermi Paradox, inaccurately attributed to physicist Enrico Fermi, suggests that if intelligent extraterrestrial life exists, there would be evidence of their visits to Earth, or presence in the galaxy and/or universe, but since there is no clear evidence, intelligent extraterrestrial life either does not exist, or some other explanation is required to explain the lack of evidence. The name of this concept improperly originates from the physicist, Enrico Fermi, who asked, “Where is everybody?”, when referring to the plausibility of interstellar travel. The question proposes that if Earth was able to develop interstellar travel, then it is plausible that other civilizations in the galaxy should be capable of developing

Was the Scientific Revolution a revolution or a conflict? Introductory paragraph: Why is the Scientific Revolution a revolution and not a conflict? The Scientific Revolution was a time period that saw many new scientific discoveries and improvements.

As I have said, a strong traditional claim is that the Scientific Revolution stands for a series of changes that stemmed from Copernicus ' bold claim that the earth moves. This claim clearly ran contrary to tradition, to the authority of the Ancients and to established views in the universities and most church officials. Copernicus claimed that the earth is not fixed and stationary in the center of the cosmos (geocentric and geostatic) but instead argued that it rotates on it 's axis each day and revolves around the sun each

The Anthropocene, the proposed geological age of humans, has become a key issue in the environmental climate change debate. Scientists disagree about whether or not the damage to the environment caused by humans should mark the beginning of a new geological age. This debate continues into when to mark the beginning of this new age. In their papers, Will Steffen, Paul Crutzen, John McNeill, Andreas Malm and Alf Hornborg address the Anthropocene debate. Arguing that the Anthropocene begins with the industrial revolution through the use of empirical data about climate change.