I'm staggered at the ammount of usage the words 'proof' and 'fact' have suffered. Reading through this entire 3-page topic (well, most of it) I have found absolutely no facts about the Universe's creation, and no proof about it, either.
My two pence (until the Euro arrives), for all they're worth:
The Universe exists, and it exists in 11 dimensions. The first three of these deal with space, the fourth deals with time, and all the others deal with the dimensions of sub-atomics. Therefore, our plane of existance is a physical one that actually exists. That is a fact (real basics here).
I've heard, here in fact, 'theory' described as an offered proof to a fact. Well...sort of. A theory is an idea offered that has not yet been prooven (prooved?), whether it be to describe facts, or whether it just be a cool idea you have.
So, here we are, we have a Universe (ours, coincidently enough) which exists. This is the 'fact' of the arguement. It is not actually a fact because a fact operates on an abstract level. More on stuff like that later.
So, here we are, we have a Universe which exists. This is the 'fact', and we are assuming that it was created somehow. Remember that that too is just an assumtion. I could branch out into the ouroboral existance of God here, and use offered proof for his existance to disproove him, but then I'd never finish this paragraph.
So, here we are (still, if you've lasted this long) in our Universe that exists. We assume our Universe was created. But, being the curious creatures we are, we want to know how, and so we start offering ideas.
"I am offering the idea that God created the Universe in six days and rested on the seventh day".
"I am offering the idea that the Universe was formed by a process dubbed 'The Big Bang', which means the Universe 'burst' out from a central point."
"I am offering the idea that the Universe is simply a mental realm where spirits create physical visions." Well, you're wrong for a start, mate.
Now, these two ideas are theories - offered ideas that have not been proven, yet. The first thing we do from now on is sort out the difference between evidence and proof.
Proof shows that the theory is definite - it is true and can never be disprooven, unless Mr Smart Git Egghead waltzes along and points out where we forgot to carry the five. It is entirely acceptable not to believe something that has been prooved. An example would be a person not believing in civilisation. An obvious load of meta-denying monkey vomit (reference to ape-human aggenda intended), but, hey, it's a free world (the stuff that's on it is often not, however).
Evidence, on the other hand, is offered to lean the proposed and accepted answer to one of the theories. An example, which ties in rather nicely: Background Microwave Radiation. Sure, it seems to 'prove' (hey that's the right spelling, isn't it? Oh well, too late to correct the past) The Big Bang Theory, but does it? Is there some other explanation? Is there some other cause for it? God created it? Aliens like plastic food bought cheap from Tesco that doesn't taste as good as the cardboard container it comes in, and endulge themselves in the pasttime exesively. Well, it's a theory, and since there could possibly be another reason, it cannot be taken as 'proof' - it is only 'evidence'.
Now, just to really complicate the matter, we have to differenciate(sp? cffee?) between 'explanation' and 'cause'. And I know how much you've all been enjoying this entralling read, which I hope I've managed to keep neutral. Please don't complain if it isn't, but without wanting to become a prime member of the attention-drawing hitlist, my poor overdosed mind just can't cope with it, and I think it might burst. Part two must come tomorrow morning.
Urg, I'm so tired. Oh well. For to wish the good night me from.
|