Search this Topic:
Aug 7 09 7:24 PM
Aug 10 09 2:31 PM
Aug 10 09 7:06 PM
Aug 11 09 7:35 AM
Aug 11 09 6:13 PM
Tooth Fairy Agnostic
Aug 11 09 6:57 PM
Aug 11 09 8:16 PM
What the fuck are you here for then Ducky?
Aug 11 09 8:32 PM
Aug 11 09 8:55 PM
Aug 11 09 10:27 PM
You're quackers? Or maybe you're going to solve the drake equation?
Aug 12 09 6:15 AM
Aug 12 09 8:23 AM
Aug 12 09 1:53 PM
Aug 12 09 3:22 PM
Don't mistake irritation for fear, you silly duck, just because you don't like fowl language.
Aug 12 09 4:34 PM
Aug 12 09 7:04 PM
Aug 12 09 7:56 PM
...an odd and contradictory statement since searching for evidences belies the notion that something is unprovable.
In any case, I then pointed out that string theories are neither (in principle) disprovable, but that M-theory, which string theories have evolved into, has
already made testable predictions, and that if we saw symmetry breaking at lower energy levels, such as provided by the LHC (or the one after that) it would
quite conclusively show that they were wrong.
So you were comparing strings (M-theory) to god.
I'm perfectly familiar with various concepts of god, but you have consistently failed to actually attempt to define god. The few ideas you have thrown
out either failed to fit the one criterion you did manage to agree on - a first-cause creator. Apart from that, you've just denied that your version of
god is any of those discussed and falsified. But your squirming denials when painted into a corner are nothing new.
I've explained my concept of God a few times in this thread, I have no idea what you are talking about.
Again, religionists often try to make out that atheism is a faith, and science a religion. While I would be happy enough to agree that science has supplanted
god as a way of making sense of the universe, that's as far as it goes.
List them then. What crucial points of understanding of the universe does science lack even a workable hypothesis for?
With a "theory of everything" there would still be unknowns, like, which atoms in a lump of radioactive material would decay over a given period.
We could say how many, but not which ones. It wouldn't mean any loss of confidence in the theory - and in fact doesn't.
But I'm not talking about a court of law. Anecdotal evidence and personal experience is not scientific if it cannot be repeated and empirically tested.
I'm talking about science, not courts where 5% of those in jail are innocent and large numbers of the guilty (perhaps up to 50%, according to some
estimates) go free. Courts don't have the same standards of evidence and proof. For a physics result to be accepted as valid, statistical significance of
the result has to be such that there has to be less than a 1 in 10,000 chance it is an artefact.
You haven't grasped this, have you? "God", we have agreed, is a first-cause creator.
The fact that other beings, as well as natural processes, are hypothesised as being able to give rise to another universe, does not make them gods.
They would not be the "first cause", and so therefore do not fit the definition.
One might make the case that some "gods" portrayed in human history could be technologically advanced beings, since sufficiently advanced beings
are indistinguishable from deities, to misquote or paraphrase Arthur C. Clarke.
That you then accused me (and in fact, various scientists) of being religious has nothing to do with the fact that belief in god makes someone religious by
The point is that science CAN in fact be used to determine the question of the existence of god,
I must thank Invunche for suggesting Victor Stenger's God: The Failed Hypothesis which I will now suggest you read.
If I have any criticism of the book it is that he has been so comprehensive in covering all the various disproofs of god that he hasn't really covered
many of them in great detail, and one is forced to go to the extensive references in order to do so.
Care to try again?
You're just a whiny, hypocritical bitch. Why don't you just shut the fuck up about being "insulted" when you weren't and are the worst
offender here (with the possible exception of Dave's less frequent but more colourful outbursts).
I don't assume anything, since you admitted it.
Different discussion, cockwad. Get with the fucking program or go back to fucking sleep.
No I'm not. The issue was people who were arguing the case for god (ie, apologists and theologians), which can in no way shape or form refer to people
who, in your opinion, don't even consider the issue.
I've already shown above that in fact, you certainly did try to say the two were analogous.
I was using it as an example of crazy religious fuckers impacting - or trying to - the lives (and specifically educations) of other people. Again you've
forgotten what the issue was. Why do I bother?
I shudder to think that there are more people in the world like you.
No, it's up to you to prove it or retract your accusation.
Quite. But I'm sure Invunche appears to think the same about you (except that you prefer videos).
Do you know anything about quantum mechanics?
You understand that QM talks about acausal events all the time, or even in fact, backwards causality? You understand it is because information can only
travel at the speed of light, so that the uncertainty factor over such scales is such that we can't tell what order they happen in? This is essentially
what QM is all about. And QM is, as I said, THE most rigorously tested theory EVER.
If causality is not required then neither is the uncaused cause - god.
Weak, incompetent, ineffective, useless.
Yes you did.
And that hasn't stopped you getting really uptight about it. Oh, and given your dismissal of Max above, the fact you were guilty of outright plagiarism
makes you a hypocrite, too. As well as a welcher.
And you're a wanker every day. C'est la vie.
The one doesn't follow from the other, but in fact QM has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. The quantum theory of electromagnetism is the most
highly tested theory ever, as I said.
Throwing your hands up and saying "God does not throw dice!" Doesn't change the matter
You said Thing don't just happen.
"I know that some scientists have said that things can just happen out of nowhere for no reason but they cannot demonstrate that to be true."
I'm afraid you were. Once we eventually established what you meant by saying that science couldn't explain how we got here (which was rather
Government and lawmaking are not science.
That you can't tell the difference perhaps explains your scepticism of science. I wouldn't trust it either if I thought it was anything like
Which shows you basically don't understand what science is about.
Oooh, very funny. You know from personal experience, I guess.
Actually I believe I may have been paraphrasing someone else there, as I've used both my own version of the argument from non existence and that of
someone else in this thread.
Either way, it's a premise, part of the overall argument, and while it certainly does mirror my opinion, I'd be interested to see why you think that
the premise is false. Stating that it is an opinion is not a counter argument or an attempt to falsify the premise and thus the argument.
If god created the universe, or had an active hand in shaping it, or in fact steps in on a regular or everyday basis to keep it running, we should see
(scientific) evidence of this. We don't. Therefore in all likelihood (and notice I used that word in the above argument) god does not exist.
Apparently you seem to think so, but um... no, not really, no.
If god is beyond the ability of science to detect, then there is no evidence for god and no reason to suspect god's existence, except an inbuilt bias
towards supernaturalism that you appear to have.
Since there are plausible hypotheses for the "cause" of the big bang and abiogenesis, and neither have been shown to be impossible, then there is
no reason to suspect god on those counts.
Yes you were. Your argument is that god is not in the same bracket as airborne pasta beasts or pink unicorns or Martian teapots because people believe in
But most deities people have believed or still believe in bear no relation to your vague, deistic god and so there is no weight in your argument for giving
god more benefit of the doubt than monsters under the bed or fairies at the bottom of the garden.
And they deserve it because...? You find their scorn justification for outright abuse because...?
Your credibility went out the fucking window the minute you said you found Velikovsky entertaining.
It's because you write such fucking shit.
Go and kill yourself with a blunt spoon.
Still wet behind the ears, and vacant between them.
Your position seems to be that science is not able to give you the answers you want.
It's more original than douchebag.
Yes, things not predicted get discovered, and things not discovered are predicted. And thus science moves on. But science - the scientific method - is not
limited to what we currently understand, since it is used to discover answers to what we don't understand, obviously.
I think anyone who quotes creationist literature or in fact hasn't been convinced by the massive preponderance of evidence for evolution is either a
creationist or an idiot. Or just an arsewipe who likes to antagonise people. Take your fucking pick.
Aug 12 09 7:59 PM
Aug 12 09 9:06 PM
Ducky M wrote:
No good deed goes un-pun -ished.
Aug 13 09 8:05 PM
© 2017 Yuku. All rights reserved.