There is testimony we can acquire, but that is not irrefutable nor scientific.
…how do you know that?
Are you asking how do I know there is testimony we can acquire? Or as you asking why it wouldn’t be irrefutable or scientific?
Yes, your second question.
Because that’s not how science works. With testimony, there is credibility in question. How credible is the witness? and so forth. By its nature, testimony is subject to unprovable scrutiny (that is, scientific scruity, not court-of-law scrutiny) and is not irrefutable.
To refute testimony scientifically is to use the wrong test. The correct test would be “beyond a reasonable doubt” as in a court or some such.
How would there be testimony at the dawn of the universe? Nobody was alive back then. I don’t understand your point.
Testimony about it. From the dawn of our universe.
I’m not sure if I quite understand what you’re saying, but testimony can obviously be falsifiable. Let’s say I propose that flowers grow from seeds. You could test this testimony to find out if I’m right or wrong. I think the same could be applied to the dawn of the universe.
That’s what I said. That’s why it’s not irrefutable nor scientific to use testimony as scientific data.
I said we can not scientifically prove the impetus or method of creation of the universe, but though there is testimony we can acquire it is not scientific nor irrefutable.
If I’m following correctly, this is the “God of the gaps” argument. There are gaps in human understanding – they change over time, but there are always gaps. Once, God made it rain, now we understand more about weather and he doesn’t (anyone seen Gene Wilder’s “God Does Not Make It Rain!” monologue from The Frisco Kid?). To an atheist-inclined person, God’s shrinking role is more proof that he’s never been there at all. To a religiously-inclined person, the gaps that have persisted through the ages point to the existence of God, as it does in Wilder’s monologue.
But they’re just gaps. They are only rightly filled with “I don’t know”. Which means they are just the blank canvas onto which we paint our own desires. If we want science to fill them, we say science will fill them, even if we don’t know it will (Heisenberg demonstrated science does not have the capacity to fill every gap). If we want God to fill them, look, there he is. Gaps neither prove nor disprove either side.