Do you belive in God?

[Farnhamia]

Truth?

That by chance, he/she just happened to be involved in subjective experiences that he/she attributed as religious in nature.

Gotcha

[New Heliopolis]

All at once or slowly over time? You'll provide me a small linkette

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

^Was beaten to it.

[Farnhamia]

All at once or slowly over time? You'll provide me a small linkette

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

I had actually heard of it, thanks. Funny, I don't see multiverses or extra-universal energy or God in there anywhere. The article deals with natural, albeit eye-crossing, explanations.

[New Heliopolis]

It certainly does--it confirms that there is in fact a multiverse, and that our own universe is in some amount of contact with it. And that's only from the general idea.

Multiverses, fine. You were going to tell me why God is a better scientific explanation for things than either what we know or than saying that we just don't know at the moment. Multiverses are not God.

No, they are not, but another universe means that it's quite possible for other beings to populate it.

[New Heliopolis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_universe

I had actually heard of it, thanks. Funny, I don't see multiverses or extra-universal energy or God in there anywhere. The article deals with natural, albeit eye-crossing, explanations.

No, but the explanations aren't invalid simply because of that.

Not to mention the fact that the article itself doesn't seem to go into very much detail onto how to explain it. It just talked about explanations as to what would come after--potential explanations, some of which rely on supernatural things--Dark Matter, again.

[Farnhamia]

Multiverses, fine. You were going to tell me why God is a better scientific explanation for things than either what we know or than saying that we just don't know at the moment. Multiverses are not God.

No, they are not, but another universe means that it's quite possible for other beings to populate it.

Which is not what we're talking about, unless you mean God comes from a different universe. That will require evidence, not just pointing to things like the accelerating expansion and saying, "It could be." You're starting to sound like a show on the History Channel.

I had actually heard of it, thanks. Funny, I don't see multiverses or extra-universal energy or God in there anywhere. The article deals with natural, albeit eye-crossing, explanations.

No, but the explanations aren't invalid simply because of that.

Not to mention the fact that the article itself doesn't seem to go into very much detail onto how to explain it. It just talked about explanations as to what would come after--potential explanations, some of which rely on supernatural things--Dark Matter, again.

I didn't say they were invalid. And Dark Matter is not "supernatural," it's just unexplained or rather, not well understood. To be "supernatural," it would have to violate the laws of physics.

[Norstal]

It's like, drinking water to satisfy your hunger.

[pointless misguided rebuttal]Just going to chime in and say that when my stomach aches for food, two glasses of water will shut it up for an hour or so.[/pointless misguided rebuttal] You may want to use a different analogy.

It fits perfectly. Drinking water to satisfy your hunger is temporary and won't solve it. Just like believing in god to satisfy scientific curiosity won't actually get you anywhere.

[Xenohumanity]

It fits perfectly. Drinking water to satisfy your hunger is temporary and won't solve it. Just like believing in god to satisfy scientific curiosity won't actually get you anywhere.

^this.
Well, at least that attempt at humorous discourse on my part got us 10 or so posts of useful content. Good job, mates.

[New Heliopolis]

Which is not what we're talking about, unless you mean God comes from a different universe. That will require evidence, not just pointing to things like the accelerating expansion and saying, "It could be." You're starting to sound like a show on the History Channel.

The bolded is kind of what I was getting at...

Not to mention that, at the moment, that's all anyone with a theory can do. I added "like every other I've heard of." for a reason.

Mine own self, I was only thinking out a possibility.

I didn't say they were invalid. And Dark Matter is not "supernatural," it's just unexplained or rather, not well understood. To be "supernatural," it would have to violate the laws of physics.

Meh. All of what I was saying either didn't violate the laws of physics--just altered those laws--or violated the laws of physics outside the bounds where physics matters. So Dark Matter is about as supernatural...

[Farnhamia]

Which is not what we're talking about, unless you mean God comes from a different universe. That will require evidence, not just pointing to things like the accelerating expansion and saying, "It could be." You're starting to sound like a show on the History Channel.

The bolded is kind of what I was getting at...

Not to mention that, at the moment, that's all anyone with a theory can do. I added "like every other I've heard of." for a reason.

I didn't say they were invalid. And Dark Matter is not "supernatural," it's just unexplained or rather, not well understood. To be "supernatural," it would have to violate the laws of physics.

Meh. All of what I was saying either didn't violate the laws of physics--just altered those laws--or violated the laws of physics outside the bounds where physics matters. So Dark Matter is about as supernatural...

"Altered those laws"? Since we define the laws - by figuring out how they work - when new data comes along, we redefine them.

"Outside the bounds where physics matters"? Now you're making things up. This is the same as "Humans are too puny to understand."

"Oh, well, physics doesn't matter in this context, where the inhabitants of another universe is reaching across the fabric to run our universe."

Yeah.

No.

[New Heliopolis]

"Altered those laws"? Since we define the laws - by figuring out how they work - when new data comes along, we redefine them.

Do you know how different that is from violating them, which is the criteria for supernaturality?

Not to mention that the laws exist whether we define them or not.

"Outside the bounds where physics matters"? Now you're making things up. This is the same as "Humans are too puny to understand."

Again, really?

Those rules were never even expected to apply beyond the universe, which is what I was talking about.

Try again.

"Oh, well, physics doesn't matter in this context, where the inhabitants of another universe is reaching across the fabric to run our universe."

And again, not what I was talking about--that's more of a change in what we know. I'm not even going to say a change in the laws because those don't change like that.

Yeah.

No.

Yeah, try again.

[Fnordgasm 5]

Well, when I found out that Santa or the Easter Bunny wasn't real I more or less stopped believing in god..

[Hittanryan]

I believe in the Immortal God-Emperor of Mankind, may He purge the aliens, mutants, and heretics who stand before Him.

Not really, no, I guess I'm an atheist.

[Xenohumanity]

Well, when I found out that Santa or the Easter Bunny wasn't real I more or less stopped believing in god..

Any reason for that? Have you tried finding the 'answer' in any shape or form AT ALL since then? I highly doubt that your faith in all things metaphysical would fly out the window once secularism reared its ugly head.

[Sociobiology]

Multiverses, fine. You were going to tell me why God is a better scientific explanation for things than either what we know or than saying that we just don't know at the moment. Multiverses are not God.

No, they are not, but another universe means that it's quite possible for other beings to populate it.

you have no evidence for a god, you have no evidence for another universe.
please understand the difference between guess,hypothesis, and theory.
a theory may not predict everything, it may even predict something general without specifics, (see hereditary and genetics) it may predict things testable with current technology and things untestable with current technology at the same time (see general relativity, gravity waves, and black holes), but they always make testable predictions, your outside the universe god makes no testable predictions, thus is not scientific.
It doesn't even have solidity as a hypothesis because you have not given a bounded description of said god. A hypothesis that describes nothing, and predicts nothing is indistinguishable from nothing.

[Xenohumanity]

I believe in the Immortal God-Emperor of Mankind, may He purge the aliens, mutants, and heretics who stand before Him.

Not really, no, I guess I'm an atheist.

Again? AGAIN with the worship of the corpse in the golden chair?
Holy crud, you Imperium types are dumb.
At least you can be certain in the fact that the Chaos Gods are, you know, functional.

And not dead.

On a golden toilet.

Oh yes. I went there.

[Sociobiology]

"Altered those laws"? Since we define the laws - by figuring out how they work - when new data comes along, we redefine them.

Do you know how different that is from violating them, which is the criteria for supernaturality?

existence beyond the observable universe, or transcendent of natural law.
or something requiring the alteration of natural without evidence for the necessary of such alteration.

[New Palimpsest]

I tried really hard when I was a kid but I just couldn't do it. The idea is so full of holes, especially when we start dealing with the specifics of religion. I can't take seriously ancient texts about spooky, supernatural occurrences. But if it makes you happy and doesn't cause you to start murdering people or coming to my house to tell me The Good News, I don't care what you do.

[Furious Grandmothers]

"Altered those laws"? Since we define the laws - by figuring out how they work - when new data comes along, we redefine them.

Do you know how different that is from violating them, which is the criteria for supernaturality?

Not to mention that the laws exist whether we define them or not.

"Outside the bounds where physics matters"? Now you're making things up. This is the same as "Humans are too puny to understand."

Again, really?

Those rules were never even expected to apply beyond the universe, which is what I was talking about.

Try again.

"Oh, well, physics doesn't matter in this context, where the inhabitants of another universe is reaching across the fabric to run our universe."

And again, not what I was talking about--that's more of a change in what we know. I'm not even going to say a change in the laws because those don't change like that.

Yeah.

No.

Yeah, try again.

What? Nothing about violating the laws of physics here. Moreover, the laws are made by US to consistently predict testable phenomena, until when something else comes along that makes better predictions, we change our laws to that. Also, why are you bringing up another universe, which can possibly have different laws than ours?

[Farnhamia]

Do you know how different that is from violating them, which is the criteria for supernaturality?

Not to mention that the laws exist whether we define them or not.



Again, really?

Those rules were never even expected to apply beyond the universe, which is what I was talking about.

Try again.



And again, not what I was talking about--that's more of a change in what we know. I'm not even going to say a change in the laws because those don't change like that.



Yeah, try again.

What? Nothing about violating the laws of physics here. Moreover, the laws are made by US to consistently predict testable phenomena, until when something else comes along that makes better predictions, we change our laws to that. Also, why are you bringing up another universe, which can possibly have different laws than ours?

That's where "God" lives. During the week. He spends Fridays with the Muslims, Saturdays with the Jews, Sundays with the Christians.

I asked for a scientific reason why "God" is a better explanation than science and all I got was this crummy multiverse.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I see an ad for a Christian dating website at the bottom of the page.

[New Heliopolis]

What? Nothing about violating the laws of physics here.

And it doesn't. Neither did my ideas.

Mine required a few slight alterations, but Dark Matter required about the same amount of presumption from affirming the law, and from the various rules of Dark Matter that are rather unique to it.

You see why your link is irrelevant?

Moreover, the laws are made by US to consistently predict testable phenomena, until when something else comes along that makes better predictions, we change our laws to that.

Physics=/=what we define as physics, always.

Also, why are you bringing up another universe, which can possibly have different laws than ours?

Because this could possibly be a source of energy for our own universe's extra expansion.

[New Heliopolis]

I asked for a scientific reason why "God" is a better explanation than science and all I got was this crummy multiverse.

*sigh*

You know...

I said "speculative and incomplete" for a reason too.

Because it is speculative and incomplete.

Just like every damn other piece of evidence, theory and what-the-crap else you can bring before me.

Go on, argue a theory, and I will shoot it down.

[Furious Grandmothers]

What? Nothing about violating the laws of physics here.

And it doesn't. Neither did my ideas.

Mine required a few slight alterations, but Dark Matter required about the same amount of presumption from affirming the law, and from the various rules of Dark Matter that are rather unique to it.

You see why your link is irrelevant?

If your ideas don't violate the laws of physics, then they would work just as well in a Godless universe. Or possibly, multiverse seeing as you like to bring that up. So what was your point in mentioning physical law violation?

Moreover, the laws are made by US to consistently predict testable phenomena, until when something else comes along that makes better predictions, we change our laws to that.

Physics=/=what we define as physics, always.

Not bad, we agree here.

Also, why are you bringing up another universe, which can possibly have different laws than ours?

Because this could possibly be a source of energy for our own universe's extra expansion.

Yeah, possibly, but this is not yet a working hypothesis on its way to becoming enshrined in a theory, right?

[Furious Grandmothers]

I asked for a scientific reason why "God" is a better explanation than science and all I got was this crummy multiverse.

*sigh*

You know...

I said "speculative and incomplete" for a reason too.

Because it is speculative and incomplete.

Just like every damn other piece of evidence, theory and what-the-crap else you can bring before me.

Go on, argue a theory, and I will shoot it down.

You will even shoot down the theory of gravity? Oh, if you do disprove it, it wouldn't be shoot down, but shoot up instead

Are you sure you even know what the scientific understandings of the terms laws, theories, and hypotheses entail?