The first problem Hawking addresses is whether a set of equations can predict the details of everyday life. He claims it can, due to the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics, which says that one can’t measure both position and velocity of a particle. This would allow for an infinite amount of possible universes, each with its own history. This is where it is necessary to use facts and explanations. Very few people have even heard of “quantum mechanics”, let alone what the “uncertainty principle” is and what its significance is; therefore he has to explain it to the readers.
Simply put, the fine-tuning argument contends that the universe was designed to ultimately create human beings. Fine-tuning is an argument which is able to contest one of the atheist’s own theories to disprove God. This will be explained in more detail later in this paper. In response to this, McCloskey says the cosmological argument “does not entitle us to postulate an all-powerful, all-perfect, uncaused cause.” As mentioned before, the cosmological argument is but one part of a concurrence for the existence of God. It does not prove God’s existence; it argues that there must be a necessary being which created the universe.
Moore also notes that there may other requirements that he does not even know that could be needed to make a proof. However, he does go on to say we all take proofs such as this to be conclusive proofs. He also gives an example showing how you cannot truly be certain about things to know them, but you might be certain which means it might be a proof. As I stated earlier, I believe he is somewhat successful in explaining his proof, but I have reason to believe that his proof cannot be taken for granted. My example involves physics and perception.
The philosophers to follow Hesiod moved slightly away from this. The Pre-Socratics focus more on what the universe was made of than how it was created. They typically chose a single element that everything consisted of and tried to explain the world according to that element. They based their theories on insight and observations. For this reason their theories are both mythical and scientific.
People have criticized this view by say that how can Kant know that the Noumenal world exists if there is no evidence of it. And there could be undiscovered species with
Good arguments or good reasons with science are those that are supported by the scientific method. In the realm of science, various theories and hypotheses can be tested and supported through the scientific method. Pseudoscience refers to a theory that belongs to the domain of science; however, it is not scientifically testable. Pseudoscience is collections of ideas or theories that are made by people who claim their theories are “scientific when they are not scientific”. Pseudoscience cannot be said as a science because their theories do not come from observation and lead nowhere to further scientific problems.
to claim to know it, statement must be considered true (objective), one must believe it (subjective) and there must be justification why the person knows it – way of knowing. Because of the subjectivity and various influential components of previous, we can never know for sure, that what we think is true. Not only we sometimes can discard ‘yesterday’s’ knowledge, but maybe tomorrow the knowledge we know today will be proven wrong as well. For example- one today knows that the highest possible velocity is speed of light. That has been proved by Einstein.
Currently, scientists have found out that even the heliocentric model is not correct as their seems to be two centres to this solar system. From this, we can see that what was once thought to be scientific truth has now been replaced with a more accurate truth. Muslims believe that one day, we will reach the ultimate truth. In addition to that, most Muslims dot discount the theory of a ‘Big Bang’ explosion at the start. The elements and what were to become the planets and stars began to cool.
This leaves the possibility that one of the test subjects not included in the sample could prove the conclusion to be incorrect. In other words, induction involves moving “from premises about objects we have examined to a conclusion about objects we haven’t examined” (Okasha, 2002, p. 19). From this statement it is apparent how induction can be a problem in science due to it’s potential to lead to a false conclusion. Another problem with induction in scientific reasoning is that induction only generalizes what has already occurred. It classifies patterns that have already happened and deems them to be true even though future occurrences may be uncertain.
So, he will find that consolation in paradise, but it does not become more truthful from it. Science is not a religion, because it is not based on the scriptures, nor the revelation, but only on the facts. This is difference between science and