Atheism; An Intellectual Dead End

[Mudda]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

They're atheists, lol.

So what would you consider unequal theories?

 

[BreezeWood]

First it doesn't have to explain that. Second science does not make any claims about the "possible". Guess what? It is entirely possible that God exists, outside of the perceivable universe. It is also entirely possible that a race of giant space hamsters exists outside of the perceivable universe. should we also build giant hamster habitats for the invisible Giant Space Hamsters that no one can see, and there is no evidence of the existence of?

It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.

.

It's also entirely possible that you personally lack the ability to perceive what many others see very clearly.

why would that not be true of every field of study since the beginning of time for one segment "or" the other. or more directly for those who willingly admit indifference.

why is your statement directed at atheism and not similarly at people who willingly accept a forged 4th century book as being an authentic religion as being the same lack of perception. possibly your own perception rather the for an authentic religion you willingly ignore.

Are you a Mormon?

.

Are you a Mormon?

no, I'm in agreement with Mudda, to be religious an individual like Columbus must cross the void to find the land on the other side, reading a book will not do that and will leave its adherent on the shore their ship never leaving the harbor. as why a spoken religion is the only means to discovering the truth for the reason to advance as a Spirit to the Everlasting.



.

Well what if you launch your ship, circle the world 300 times and don't find land? Is there an equal probability that land is out there or do you eventually give up? Do the odds go down the longer you look unsuccessfully? Or if you find nothing do you continue to have blind faith despite the evidence? What made you think there was land out there in the first place? What makes you think a god exists in the first place?

And theorizing that there are other lands out there beyond ours is not an extraordinary claim. We aren't talking about invisible creators that created a heaven for us after we die and cares about us.

Lastly, what the fuck did you just say? I'm re reading it and what the fuck??? Are you speaking in tongues?

.

What made you think there was land out there in the first place? What makes you think a god exists in the first place?

there is an apex to all things ... The Apex of Knowledge, till you reach the summit you reside in the void of its pursuit, if not faith as Columbus, desperation or having no choice the same is true, setting foot on the other side is the only way to understand its full meaning. swimming to the surface to take your breath is the same experience - and in the long run of life to free one's Spirit few seem to make it.


the genome of life must be a dimension all beings emerge from and where it would be possible to return to as a Freed Spirit, purity from and back to required ... ruled hopefully by an Almighty. that place may or may not have anything to do with the creation of the universe.

now you know.

 

[Czernobog]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"... As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory. It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis. I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity. "God exists, and he is invisible, and exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it? It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.

 

[pinqy]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

They're atheists, lol.

So what would you consider unequal theories?

Part of my point is that we cannot necessarily tell. But we should tentatively accept whichever theory best matches available evidence and which does not require additional entities.

 

[pinqy]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"... As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory. It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis. I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity. "God exists, and he is invisible, and exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it? It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.

Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.

 

[WillReadmore]

Sure, make the presumption and then test it.

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

All hypothesis start out as unproven. It must be examined and tested to be proven.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

Really? Sure, before the beginning is philosophy, but the rest? Can you be more specific about what isn't science?

Science requires the formation of hypotheses.

In order to be a valid hypothesis there must be a method of proving falsity. That is a fundamental precept of science.

The exciting thing about the detection of Higgs particles at Cern is that it brought these ideas about the fundamentals of gravity into the realm of science - stuff about which we can gather evidence, observe, prove false, etc. Until then, serious scientists believed that these particles existed, but there was no way of testing those ideas. Then, Europe built its super conducting super collider, making it possible to test these ideas.

Any hypothesis that references God is outside of science, as humans have no way of testing that idea - no way to prove such ideas false.

That should be crystal clear. For example, I could try creating an hypothesis that says that God does gravity. That God moves each particle in the universe according to a pattern that we perceive as gravity. Obviously, that is within the power of the God we are talking about - always present everywhere, totally powerful, etc. But, there is no way of proving that false. From there, please accept that the minute a hypothesis includes "God" it becomes untestable and thus is outside of science.

 

[sealybobo]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

We were thinking you are being obtuse. Slow to understand.

 

[sealybobo]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

They're atheists, lol.

So what would you consider unequal theories?

Either gravity is holding us all down or god is. I'll give you a hint. One isn't even a theory

 

[Czernobog]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"... As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory. It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis. I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity. "God exists, and he is invisible, and exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it? It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.

Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

 

[Czernobog]

Okay. Test away. How do you intend to test your premise that the Universe was created?

What do you think I've been doing, lol.

Well, I've pointed out that you are tending to go in circles.

Also, it seems weird to me to depend so thoroughly on science and then flip to a totally non-scientific direction.

It's been more like stuck in first gear than circles. Can you give an example of my "flip?" I don't follow you.

The rules of science don't allow for there to be any hypothesis that includes references to God.

Even when it is of the natural world? If you made something couldn't I study it and learn something about you?

Science does that all the time. No problem with that.

However, you won't be able to find out whether I'm God by doing that.

Agreed, I never said otherwise. I can learn certain things about you.

The catch is that you aren't applying the constraints that are fundamental to science. You are suggesting that we could identify something as requiring the supernatural.

No. I don't believe I have done that. Can you show me what I have written that led you to believe that?

We can use science to learn about our universe, but what we are learning is how natural processes work. When we run into stuff we don't understand, the answer from science is, "I don't know."

After a bunch more work, we often go back and say, "OK, now I know."

But, you are suggesting that at some point we should NOT say, "I don't know" - that we should instead say "God did it."

But, science has NO WAY to determine when to switch from "I don't know" to "God did it".

Again, I don't know how you are making this leap. I am examining the only evidence we have for a Creator which is what and how it was created. I am using our experiences as a proxy in doing so.

The point is that what you are doing isn't science. You can try to get around the rules, but in the end it just isn't science.

Your "is there a god" thing is not a "hypothesis", because no hypothesis in scientific method can refer to god in any way. There is no possibility of testing for god. Thus it's outside of science. End of story.

We do the same with stuff like string theory. We have no way of testing whether these ideas are part of our natural world. So, we have smart people thinking about things, using math, accepting progress science is making, but that doesn't mean it is science. It's not.

In your case, you are still applying the idea that if TODAY we can't explain some phenomenon we see, then it must be evidence of God - and that is BS.

If we can't explain some phenomenon we see, that is evidence that we don't know something.

Really? Sure, before the beginning is philosophy, but the rest? Can you be more specific about what isn't science?

Science requires the formation of hypotheses.

In order to be a valid hypothesis there must be a method of proving falsity. That is a fundamental precept of science.

The exciting thing about the detection of Higgs particles at Cern is that it brought these ideas about the fundamentals of gravity into the realm of science - stuff about which we can gather evidence, observe, prove false, etc. Until then, serious scientists believed that these particles existed, but there was no way of testing those ideas. Then, Europe built its super conducting super collider, making it possible to test these ideas.

Any hypothesis that references God is outside of science, as humans have no way of testing that idea - no way to prove such ideas false.

That should be crystal clear. For example, I could try creating an hypothesis that says that God does gravity. That God moves each particle in the universe according to a pattern that we perceive as gravity. Obviously, that is within the power of the God we are talking about - always present everywhere, totally powerful, etc. But, there is no way of proving that false. From there, please accept that the minute a hypothesis includes "God" it becomes untestable and thus is outside of science.

Kinda what I have been screaming. If one wants to believe in the existence of God, feel free. Just don't insult my intelligence by trying to suggest that an invisible entity that exists outside of the natural universe can be detected, and demonstrated with rational scientifically sound evidence. It is, by nature, irrational.

 

[Mudda]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

We were thinking you are being obtuse. Slow to understand.

Now you're copying me? I'm flattered.

 

[Mudda]

[50/50 in the sense of yes or no. But every rational theory has an equal chance of being right.

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

They're atheists, lol.

So what would you consider unequal theories?

Either gravity is holding us all down or god is. I'll give you a hint. One isn't even a theory

So then what you proposed weren't even unequal theories. Bravo. Care to try again?

 

[Mudda]

That is untrue. Given the knowledge at the time, the miasma theory of disease and the aether theory of space were rational, scientific theories. But there was no chance of them being right, because of fundamental assumptions that were wrong. In the case of miasma theory, it was assumed that germs could only be transmitted by touch, so that airborne transmission of disease disproved the germ theory and supported the miasma theory, which required airborne transmission. In the case of aether, it was wrongly assumed that light, electro-magnetic radiation, and gravity needed a medium to go through..

But even if 2 theories are equally probable, that does not mean the chances are 50/50 because we cannot know how many other rational theories are possible.

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"... As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory. It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis. I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity. "God exists, and he is invisible, and exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it? It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.

Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

 

[Czernobog]

You jumped in late, that's sorta what we're talking about, but I'm dealing with some pretty obtuse peeps.

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"... As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory. It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis. I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity. "God exists, and he is invisible, and exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it? It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.

Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

 

[Mudda]

I realize I came back in to the thread a little late, but now you have me confused. You seemed to be saying (because you outright said it) that EVERY rational theory has an equal chance of being right. This is incorrect...not all theories are equally possible. So how are the people you are arguing against "obtuse" when you're the one who is incorrect?

Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"... As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory. It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis. I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity. "God exists, and he is invisible, and exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it? It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.

Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

 

[Czernobog]

Well...and then there is the matter of "rational theory"... As someone pointed out, "God exists" isn't a theory. It isn't even a very well-formed hypothesis. I mean a hypothesis needs to be tested, and retested to establish validity. "God exists, and he is invisible, and exists in a state that is impossible to perceive, let alone test," isn't exactly a rational hypothesis, now is it? It's more of a justification for an irrational belief, designed specifically to insulate the believers from assault by anyone with reason, by setting the parameters of the belief beyond the ability of rational testing.

Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

 

[Mudda]

Well, the main problem is that there's no clear definition of what a god is and what its properties are and what tests we could conduct to tell whether a proposed god actually met those criteria.

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

My mind isn't closed to discoveries. Why do you think maintining the rational position "God does not exist" until such time as evidence demonstrates otherwise, precludes the search for, or acceptance of new discoveries?

 

[ding]

No. The data, the laws of conservation, general relativity and quantum mechanics insists the universe had a beginning.

Origins: CERN: Ideas: The Big Bang | Exploratorium

Well, since there is a theory in quantum mechanics - that I have shared several times, and you have apparently not bothered to explore - it doesn't insist that the universe had a beginning; that is only one suggested hypothesis.

It's like you are waving your arms. They don't insist because they know they have problems and it is the problem I am telling you about. And you are trying to lay it off on me to explain for you. Can you explain to me how your model doesn't run out of usable energy?

Tell me how much energy is lost in conversion to zero mass matter, and you'll have your answer.

Sent from my 5054N using Tapatalk

None and that doesn't mean anything. What about the rest of matter that does?

It's irrelevant, because so long as zero mass quantum matter can exist, then the amount of useable energy is infinite. Infinite universe, and the Law of Entropy remains intact, and no need for God. Thus endeth the lesson.

Now you are just making shit up and you have violated the Law of Conservation of Energy. Why don't you just be honest and admit that you don't know what the hell you are talking about?

 

[ding]

Actually, the main problem is that God, as being defined by the religionists in this discussion, is an entity which exists beyond the realms of the physical universe, which places the entity beyond any capacity to detect, or test for with science, which, of course, can only detect, and test that which is within the universe, and subject to the laws of nature. By defining God as "supernatural", they have effectively placed God beyond nature, and impossible to detect, or test for. Rather convenient for them, no?

Actually, you don't know that what is outside this universe will never been known. Some theorize that we touch other universes with our own and it sets off another Big Bang... just like you don't know if the universe had any external force helping it assemble all of its laws...

Well, since all science relies on the laws of the natural universe, and the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws, it rather seems unlikely that science will ever be able to observe, or interact with something that it is beyond its capacity don't you think? Or are you suggesting that science will develop a way to violate the laws of nature?

"the contention is that nothing beyond this universe is subject to those laws", in your words it's just a "contention", not a fact. I'll wait and see what happens... no need to exclude anything at this point like you do.

Why does the scientific standard offend you so?

Why is your mind closed to discoveries? Which how your scientific standard gets set.

See how much more fun that was. There must be a God, lol.