Our universe maybe a little younger than previously thought

[shunyadragon]

Scientific advances have refined the age of the universe with new evidence from Hubble.

Source: https://www.thisisinsider.com/universe-younger-expanding-faster-than-thought-study-new-physics-2019-4

© Copyright Original Source

[ReformedApologist]

Scientific advances have refined the age of the universe with new evidence from Hubble.

Source: https://www.thisisinsider.com/universe-younger-expanding-faster-than-thought-study-new-physics-2019-4

© Copyright Original Source

It's interesting, those who hold to a radical view scientism always talk about how Science is objective in its research, and yet they can come up with different numbers that contradict previous ideas. Science used to say the universe was 14 Billion years old, and now new evidence has come to light that this may not be the case. But of course science is never neutral, rather it is interpreted by the presuppositions of the scientist. So this news never surprises me.

[shunyadragon]

It's interesting, those who hold to a radical view scientism always talk about how Science is objective in its research, and yet they can come up with different numbers that contradict previous ideas. Science used to say the universe was 14 Billion years old, and now new evidence has come to light that this may not be the case. But of course science is never neutral, rather it is interpreted by the presuppositions of the scientist. So this news never surprises me.

Scientism?

[rogue06]

It's interesting, those who hold to a radical view scientism always talk about how Science is objective in its research, and yet they can come up with different numbers that contradict previous ideas. Science used to say the universe was 14 Billion years old, and now new evidence has come to light that this may not be the case. But of course science is never neutral, rather it is interpreted by the presuppositions of the scientist. So this news never surprises me.

The great thing about science is that not everyone shares the same presuppositions so folks who may hold a very different view can check the data and see if it is valid. If the conclusions don't stand up to the scrutiny, or if more data comes in demonstrating that it is untenable, then it is subject to change. This is why a good scientists tries to refrain from declaring that something has been "proven" (the old joke goes that proof is for mathematics -- and alcohol), or "settled science."^[1]

Although some see this as a supposed weakness, it is in fact one of science's greatest strengths. While individual scientists may be dogmatic, science or the facts aren't.





1. Still, there are somethings that we have so much evidence for (like the earth is larger than the moon for instance) that it is truly inconceivable that something will come along overturning the proverbial apple cart.

[rogue06]

Scientism?

There are those who think that science can answer virtually any question. They are beholden to philosophical or ontological naturalism^[1]. While science is extremely good at answering questions dealing with "how" it often fails miserably at answering the questions dealing with why. Those questions are best answered by theologians and philosophers.







1. as opposed to methodological naturalism which is an entirely different thing

[Seeker]

There are those who think that science can answer virtually any question. They are beholden to philosophical or ontological naturalism^[1]. While science is extremely good at answering questions dealing with "how" it often fails miserably at answering the questions dealing with why. Those questions are best answered by theologians and philosophers.




1. as opposed to methodological naturalism which is an entirely different thing

Or, as an acquaintance used to say, the ''hows'' must be dicovered, the ''whys'' must be made up.

[shunyadragon]

There are those who think that science can answer virtually any question. They are beholden to philosophical or ontological naturalism^[1]. While science is extremely good at answering questions dealing with "how" it often fails miserably at answering the questions dealing with why. Those questions are best answered by theologians and philosophers.







1. as opposed to methodological naturalism which is an entirely different thing

That is most definitely NOT the context of the post by the Reformed Apologist.

I will acknowledge that even the most extreme atheists and materialists get their science right. The Reformed Apologist obviously does not.

Again . . . Scientism

[rogue06]

That is most definitely NOT the context of the post by the Reformed Apologist.

I believe that RA can speak for himself.

I will acknowledge that even the most extreme atheists and materialists get their science right. The Reformed Apologist obviously does not.

Not when they think that is all that there is.

Again . . . Scientism

And yet directly above your post we see an example of it.

[shunyadragon]

I believe that RA can speak for himself.

He already did.

Not when they think that is all that there is.

My overwhelming concern is science as science is in this context, and not ones philosophical or theological view is independent of Methodological Naturalism.

And yet directly above your post we see an example of it.

No it is not

[rogue06]

No it is not

An expression that science can answer virtually any question and those it can't are likely nonexistent or aren't real.

[shunyadragon]

An expression that science can answer virtually any question and those it can't are likely nonexistent or aren't real.

Again . . . That was not my point, and you are misrepresenting me. Science answers questions only concerning our physical existence, and it is very questionable that "science can answer virtually any question concerning the nature of our physical existence." . . . because science does not actually claim it can. Even the extreme atheists and materialists will try to use Methodological Naturalism to answer questions beyond the bounds of the falsification of theories and hypothesis.

The Materialist or Ontological Naturalist view is simply that there is no evidence beyond science for a reason to believe in God(s) nor worlds beyond our physical existence. They do not ry to answer these questions where there is no objective verifiable evidence.

[JonathanL]

Again . . . That was not my point, and you are misrepresenting me.

No he's not, because he wasn't referring to anything you wrote in the first place, but to seekers post #6.

[shunyadragon]

No he's not, because he wasn't referring to anything you wrote in the first place, but to seekers post #6.

His post was addressed to me, if there is a communication problem he heens to clarify it.

[JonathanL]

His post was addressed to me, if there is a communication problem he heens to clarify it.

No, you need to read what he wrote more carefully:

And yet directly above your post we see an example of it.

"directly above your post", i.e post #6 which was directly above the post of yours to which he was replying. He was being perfectly clear, you just need to work on your reading comprehension.

[Cow Poke]

His post was addressed to me, if there is a communication problem he heens to clarify it.

Looks like your complaint about a communication problem has a communication problem.