r/PhilosophyofScience

I came up with this a year ago and just decided to post it now.

In this discussion we are assuming that the Big Bang did occur.

So basically, as we all know, the Big Bang was a chemical reaction of sorts, and the reactants produced the leftover of the Big Bang. But as the products of the Big Bang gravitate, they start another set of chemical reactions (hence burning hydrogen in stars, etc.) which eventually produce products (I.e. end of a star’s life). At this stage, these stars are likely large enough to become black holes and the supernova that occurs pushes matter back out into the universe, which clump together, and more reactions occur. Now I’ll cut to the chase and basically my idea is that the most objective way you can view the world at the is point is how everything is the result of chemical reactions, starting from the Big Bang. That means everything, your thoughts, this post, mental processes, ideas, the metaverse, EVERYTHING is a result of a chemical reaction. Now I am not sure if this has not been posted yet since I do not have the time to do that research, and if it has then just view this post as an agreement with the original post. I’m pretty sure nobody has posted this yet though, because in the little research I did, I did not find anything. Now just to clarify, I am not saying a theory, a fact that I have proved or ANYTHING to do with “facts” of any sort, this is just a view of a view of the world that I came up with and I thought was pretty interesting. Of course feel free to say any criticism about this view or what parts you disagree with. You can also ask me to clarify, my grammar is not the best :) I hope this will just be a shower thought you guys will enjoy!

Long text incoming

I asked this same question to r/askphilosophy but I figured I’d as folks very familiar with philosophy of science. For context I’m a scientist by trade and I want to get a stronger grip on the philosophy side of knowledge and stuff.

For context, this is all based off a counter to a scientific education video in a comment thread
To summarize, the argument is science and thus scientific disciplines only work within a naturalistic worldview and theories, evidence, and interpretations are based on the unfounded presupposition of naturalism and because of that, fail to justify their source of knowledge.

This is a direct quote from the commenter to avoid any paraphrasing errors.
“you have a assumption technically called a presupposition. It's a framework a rule set you view the world through. Yours is naturalism. You see a fossil data as you interpret it through your framework naturalism. The fossil doesn't say anything it doesn't come with a name tag and bio telling you anything about itself. You use theory based on your framework naturalism to make a theory laden outcome evolution. Evolution makes sense in the framework of naturalism. That shows coherence inside the framework of naturalism. It doesn't prove the framework is correct. If you use the outcomes to prove the framework it's circular reasoning begging the question. It you change the assumption the presupposition you change the entire framework and rule set. The very same data the fossil now has an entire different theory because data the fossil is underdetermined. It's not determined because a fossil doesn't say what it is. I'm asking how do you justify your framework your assumption your presupposition naturalism is the correct framework vs other frameworks. Get it. Philosophy of science the underdetermination of data thesis. My question isn't about evolution or science it's a knowledge question. How do you justify the knowledge based rule set framework of naturalism. It's your presupposition.
You have to justify it. Because the data can be interpreted differently using different frameworks.”

When presented scientific evidence by others, the commenter almost always defaults to “you presenting physical evidence collected under a presupposed method to collection and interpretation does not justify tube scientific method as it has unfounded presuppositions and this the interpretations are also unfounded.” Quote: “A presupposition like naturalism is the untestable rule book that dictates what counts as testing, evidence and data in the first place. You can test a hypothesis with data you cannot use data to test the naturalistic rulebook you used to gather that data. Justify your rulebook naturalism without circular reasoning.”

When finally giving their counter this is what they say. Quote:
“Then when asked directing on their worldview they have this to say “TAG is the only way out of the criterion problem and the trilemma. Specifically the Orthodox Christian version. You have to go
transcendental. And see which worldview can account for justify and ground the necessary preconditions for knowledge… TAG is the impossibility of the contrary. You aren't using autonomous human reason as a flashlight to "go out and locate" God. You are pointing out that reason itself requires an ontological anchor to exist at all. This is a meta level higher order argument. You're conflating empirical observation with the worldview of Naturalism. Christians use empirical observation because our framework accounts for the uniformity of nature, human sensory reliability, and the laws of logic all anchored in the Logos. Naturalists use empirical observation on blind, unjustified faith. In an unguided, material universe, there is zero epistemic reason to assume the universe will behave uniformly tomorrow Hume's Problem of Induction. Christians and naturalists both use test tubes. The difference is the Christian has an epistemic right to trust the test tube, while the naturalist is borrowing Christian assumptions about order and logic while denying the foundation that makes them possible. On Evolution. TAG establishes Level 2 the ground of logic and knowledge. It doesn't instantly dictate every Level 1 detail about physics or biology. How God created is a question of revelation and grounded observation, not something ‘sneaked' into TAG. We don't trap God inside an autonomous human logic syllogism. Human logic isn't the ultimate judge standing above reality it is a derivative tool that reflects the Logos. How do we know the foundation? Through Revelation. Finite humans don't need exhaustive knowledge to have certainty; we receive revelation from the infinite source who grounds logic, order, and mind in the first place. Without Revelation, autonomous human reason is stuck in Agrippa's Trilemma. With Revelation, knowledge has its necessary anchors.”

My main question now is does their worldview actually stand against the same criticisms they lobby against science and if the criticisms are valid under epistemological concepts and finally, are the criticisms are even sound? Thanks!