Gödel already produced the evidence. I have evidence as well.
There are three languages, or three disciplines to express ourselves in at the highest level, Eduprid.
* Science
* Philosophy
* Religion
All three make use of structural thinking, and I am going to ignore religion here and focus on the specific differences between science and philosophy.
In science, the standard of communication is discussing facts, placed at the basis, and next discussing theories that involve facts.
In science, it is actually possible to move beyond the scientific reasoning and enter a realm that is not part of science any longer.
When scientists fail to recognize that they passed the scientific border, that is when they should stop talking. For instance, building theories on facts is great, yet building theories upon theories upon theories upon facts makes it possible to not have our feet attached to the ground anymore.
Plato did the same.
https://fred-rick.medium.com/platos-big-bang-a02a36b05fc7
Then, there is the philosophical structure. This is different from the scientific structure, and at the same time both are seeking the truth (in religion, the truth is not the reason, per se).
In philosophy, the goal is to make the other person agree to seeing a structure. The other person is the reason for starting the conversation. This means something larger can be discussed than just the facts, while the facts do (or can) play important roles in philosophy.
I know you can see the difference between both, but I am also hoping that you can agree to the following:
* In science, we close one eye to make sure that the other person can see the exact same information when closing one eye, too.
* In philosophy, we want the other to have both eyes open to see the very specific perspective.
Ordinarily, Science is the king of all disciplines.
However, when scientists forget where they are, then they can become emperors without clothes.
When discussing the specific situation of matter appearing out of something prior, some 13.8 billion years ago, then scientists are becoming emperors without clothes. They should not declare that science is king in that domain because no scientist can deliver, while philosophers can deliver more, factually speaking.
When scientists use the result to declare what caused the result, then a philosopher has to speak up and tell that these scientists are talking beyond their profession. They are not using correct logic.
Lastly, I will mention Gödel again in more words, because he already delivered ultimate evidence of what we need to know to keep both eyes open about the beginning of the materialization process.
Scientists threw his work in the scientific garbage can, and that is the point where the scientists overstepped themselves. They played king in an area in which they are not kings.
I, too, have evidence that supports the evidence that Gödel provided.
Scientists cannot see it because they have one eye closed.
In the dark, it is better to have both eyes open.
Gödel and I are presenting information that Nothing played a natural role in the materialization process. Scientists cannot see Nothing; they are blind to it.
It’s like the ability to blow up a balloon. Scientists will say everything about this process there is to say. But they will not say that there are two ways to blow up the same balloon. Philosophers will.
Scientists cannot see that the materialization process started up because of a 'divorce' and they are desperately looking for a 'marriage' among all evidence. That is not very smart. It takes structural philosophers to show them the way.
Thank you for your further thoughts.
