If that were my thesis, that would be a foolish thesis indeed!
...but even if there were, it would be unknowable in principle.
That is correct simply because we (human beings) can never know the whole truth simply because we can never know all there is to know.
Therefore, all there can be is opinion. And one man's opinion is just as good as any other man's.
No, we also know some facts. Opinions come in where the facts are lacking.
But if there is structure and order in the universe (and we perceive that there is), then there must be something universally "true" at the foundation of the order we perceive.
Yes, that something is structure and order. We all agree on that.
Otherwise the world would be one way this instant, and something entirely different at the next instant.
Isn't that what happens when cataclysmic events take place?
In short, the universe would be fundamentally chaotic. But if so, then why are things persistently the way they are, and not some other way?
Perception of order does not say whence came the order. We simply don't know why.
Such a view requires denial of the universal order which we do perceive.
No it doesn't betty boop. It acknowledges the order without hypothesizing as to why or how. It accepts the fact that we are too limited to know everything. It is quite humbling.
Such a refusal to apperceive the obvious constitutes an "opinion" that rests on nothing but a refusal to recognize that truthful human knowledge is the product of engaging the real world by observation and experience.
A refusal to acknowledge order in the Universes would indeed constitute such a denial.
This is to acknowledge that there is a "givenness" to the universal system of which we are parts and participants. That givenness entails that the phenomenal universe (which we perceive to be ordered) and the human mind (which also possesses order by virtue of its capacity for logic and reasoning) can be brought into correspondence.
No argument there, betty boop.
This is the basis of all truthful knowledge. This is the basis of science.
This is the basis for all truthful knowledge within our capacities, which are limited in scope.
Case in point: There are many fans of "eternal universe," "steady-state" or "boom-and-bust" cosmological models. These opinions are increasingly being undercut by physical observations of, e.g., the cosmic microwave background radiation, and the cosmic expansion, which point to a real beginning of space and time. Despite the accumulating evidence, many still cling to their preferred opinion that the universe is eternal, and/or steady-state, and/or boom-and-bust.
Indeed, the Steady State die hards are no different than Flat Earth believers. Their models are not what the current evidence supports, although the Big Bag is approaching the periphery rather quickly as well.
In effect, the holders of such views are attempting to make their own preferences the measure of what the universe is.
True, but there is no guarantee that the holders of the Big bang are any closer to the truth either.
All such views seem motivated by a deep distaste for, and desire to avoid the "origin problem," i.e., a universal beginning of space and time in a unique cosmic event.
The problem with the "original problem" begins with the invocation of the "cause" which is not supported by any observed evidence and cannot be even defined.
In other words, a creation event. They cling to their preferred opinion, despite the piling up of evidence that refutes it.
Again, the creation event is in itself nothing to hand one's ego on. The creation event become problematic when one invokes "God" in it, and in particular one specific man-made god.
What is the value of an opinion (or as you put it, a "belief") that can be falsified on the basis of evidence, logic, and reason?
Beliefs tend to resist evidence to the contrary. They also accept as "fact" that which is by necessity imaginary. The "value" of such a belief has to do with the degree to which one's whole existence or life depends on it. If you invest all your hopes in one belief, if that belief is a sanctuary, discovering that it is false would be extremely threatening to one's psyche and the mind would tend to tenaciously hold on to it despite the evidence to the contrary. In other words, a denial.
What is faith, Kosta, in your calculus? And does faith require an object of faith? And can there exist a feedback from exercising faith?
Well thank you for your acknowledgement of that "fact," dear kosta!
The problem is you refuse to acknowledge a basis, a cause of the structure and order we both perceive.
Do you suppose that such can be a product of a random, purely "natural," "accidental" development? Or that some sort of purposeful mind has specified such?
In human observation and direct experience, all instances of design and order can be traced to a creative mind. All purpose-built "machines" (or more generically, systems) are the result of the creative mind of the person who built them. We have never seen an example of a machine (or natural system) that built itself....
You have to go with what you know....
Or do you insist on remaining "agnostic" on this point? If so, WHY???
Because you don't "know everything there is to know?" Who does? If we had to wait until we "know everything," there would never have been any human progress, in the arts or the sciences. Even Newton, say, or Einstein would have been mute, had they followed you prescription.
An observer can see only what he can see from where he stands. Some observers believe the only things that are "real" are things that can be directly observed and measured. Which leaves God out of the picture in principle.
I think you want to see as God, the Ultimate Observer, sees.
But as a mortal human, stuck in the four dimensional block of normal human awareness, you can't. Get used to it!
Meanwhile, you have to live your life according to your own best lights.
If you have no light from the Holy Spirit, I doubt you will ever see the most important things in the world of human experience.
Cataclysmic events do not change the underlying structure of the universe. They are temporary departures from it. And when they blow over, we get back to the status quo ante. Cataclysmic events, in short, in no way permanently change the essential order of things.
You wrote, "Perception of order does not say whence came the order. We simply don't know why." Jeepers, kosta, I think you don't want to know WHY; for in your heart of hearts you already know that the order comes from a Source you don't want to acknowledge. For whatever reason.
My sense is you know ever so much MORE than you are willing to acknowledge publicly. Privately you know it; but you don't like what you know.... Again, for whatever reason.
You wrote: "...there is no guarantee that the holders of the Big bang are any closer to the truth either." To believe that is to believe that scientific evidence for the Big Bang is nonexistent. But this would not be true. Indeed, quite the contrary increasingly is the case.
You wrote: "The problem with the 'original problem' begins with the invocation of the "cause" which is not supported by any observed evidence and cannot be even defined."
Often it's the case that we infer causes from their effects. Effects are actually observed. Thus they constitute some kind of evidence regarding their cause. Though it's true that causes are identified through a process of induction, not deduction. But this is how science goes about its business. Do you have a problem with that?
God is not "man-made." You've got that exactly backwards. :^)
And not only that, but you can offer zero evidence that your view is correct or true. Such evidence simply does not exist.
Thus I regard the following as a complete non sequitur:
Beliefs tend to resist evidence to the contrary. They also accept as "fact" that which is by necessity imaginary. The "value" of such a belief has to do with the degree to which one's whole existence or life depends on it. If you invest all your hopes in one belief, if that belief is a sanctuary, discovering that it is false would be extremely threatening to one's psyche and the mind would tend to tenaciously hold on to it despite the evidence to the contrary. In other words, a denial.FWIW.