Do you belive in God?

[Dyakovo]

Scientific theories ARE REQUIRED to be testable. I mean, that's the very rudimentary basis of science.

That's why the varied theories about the universe's creation are around, right?

In a word? Yes.

[New Heliopolis]

There's plenty of observable evidence for the big bang. The lack of observable evidence is for hypotheses on the "origin" of the big bang. As such, scientists tend not to treat the origins of the big bang as authoritatively as they do the big bang itself. They don't go around claiming that the big bounce MUST be true or than the brane-world collision model has been proven.

No, they actually do. Whenever you read a science textbook, you don't read "the most commonly accepted theory is..." you see "x happened". Even if you do see the former modifier, it just isn't treated as such, by well, anyone.




As to your argument from ignorance statement...not in all cases, but certainly in the case of the universe. And Dark matter.

[Sociobiology]

So, just to clarify, a question for any atheists arguing that the lack of evidence for God is the cause of their unbelief: do you not believe in anything that cannot be empirically proven to be true (or at least very likely)?

I don't believe in anything. I accept it. I accept math as something that cannot be empirically be proven, yet it works. Math is just is.

Of course math can be empirically proven, every time a scientist makes a prediction based on a mathematical formula, it is tested against the real world, The apollo landing was a great test for mathematics because its path relied upon complex mathematical formula, the math could easily be disproven by say missing the moon entirely. It is difficult to test directly but not impossible to test.

[New Heliopolis]

What does this sentence mean?

I bet the guy is saying how Darwin would have never founded evolution if he wasn't searching for a way to prove God created every organism on this planet. Along with other scientists like Darwin.

Which is a bullshit argument. Their motivations are irrelevant. What matters is that the theory works.

And thus far, no theory of the universe's origins works. (Not talking about the Big Bang, but...actually, that one doesn't work either. If you take into account the excessive expansion).

[New Heliopolis]

That's why the varied theories about the universe's creation are around, right?

In a word? Yes.

I don't recall any true tests being formed. At least working ones.

[Four-sided Triangles]

No, they actually do. Whenever you read a science textbook, you don't read "the most commonly accepted theory is..." you see "x happened". Even if you do see the former modifier, it just isn't treated as such, by well, anyone.

Science textbooks are all published YEARS AND YEARS after a controversy is settled by the evidence. They tend not to include research on the fringes, and when they do, they treat it tentatively. They spend the majority of the time talking about extremely well-established scientific models.

As to your argument from ignorance statement...not in all cases, but certainly in the case of the universe. And Dark matter.

Bullshit. CNN reports on scientific research about cosmology is not an accurate representation of actual scientific papers.

This is a real paper on cosmology:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/110 ... 3370v2.pdf

[Norstal]

I don't believe in anything. I accept it. I accept math as something that cannot be empirically be proven, yet it works. Math is just is.

Of course math can be empirically proven, every time a scientist makes a prediction based on a mathematical formula, it is tested against the real world, The apollo landing was a great test for mathematics because its path relied upon complex mathematical formula, the math could easily be disproven by say missing the moon entirely. It is difficult to test directly but not impossible to test.

Well, that's not really the math itself though is it? This is more of a miscalculation, a human error. After all, math is a tool. It won't work if you didn't use the tool right, although finding how to use the tool is harder than it looks.

[Norstal]

I bet the guy is saying how Darwin would have never founded evolution if he wasn't searching for a way to prove God created every organism on this planet. Along with other scientists like Darwin.

Which is a bullshit argument. Their motivations are irrelevant. What matters is that the theory works.

And thus far, no theory of the universe's origins works. (Not talking about the Big Bang, but...actually, that one doesn't work either. If you take into account the excessive expansion).

Maybe the universe has no origin. Maybe it has always been there.

[Four-sided Triangles]

Of course math can be empirically proven, every time a scientist makes a prediction based on a mathematical formula, it is tested against the real world, The apollo landing was a great test for mathematics because its path relied upon complex mathematical formula, the math could easily be disproven by say missing the moon entirely. It is difficult to test directly but not impossible to test.

That doesn't test mathematics so much as test whether or not a specific mathematical structure is applicable. Even if it weren't applicable, it would still be a valid structure.

[Gauntleted Fist]

I believe in the God Emperor, who is my protector. So, I voted Other.

[New Heliopolis]

Science textbooks are all published YEARS AND YEARS after a controversy is settled by the evidence. They tend not to include research on the fringes, and when they do, they treat it tentatively. They spend the majority of the time talking about extremely well-established scientific models.

Well, not entirely. I bring you again to the Big Bang, which there are quite some holes in.

Bullshit. CNN reports on scientific research about cosmology is not an accurate representation of actual scientific papers.

This is a real paper on cosmology:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/110 ... 3370v2.pdf

Read it, found discussions more on shape then on either the universe's creation or, well, anything else I mentioned.

It seems to me you care more about the motive, which is why I mentioned the scientists like Darwin, hm?

[Xenohumanity]

All I can do is refer you to the works of the late, great William S. Baring-Gould and you can decide.

A man can dream, Farn. A man can dream.

[New Heliopolis]

And thus far, no theory of the universe's origins works. (Not talking about the Big Bang, but...actually, that one doesn't work either. If you take into account the excessive expansion).

Maybe the universe has no origin. Maybe it has always been there.

Possibly. But then, why the universe here, now, and in particular?

Data to prove other theories (or no) is needed to form some conclusion based on anything other than belief.

[Norstal]

Maybe the universe has no origin. Maybe it has always been there.

Possibly. But then, why the universe here, now, and in particular?

I wouldn't know.

Data to prove other theories (or no) is needed to form some conclusion based on anything other than belief.

Yes. Which is why I didn't conclude anything.

[Norstal]

I believe in the God Emperor, who is my protector. So, I voted Other.

Burn, purge, kill!

[New Heliopolis]

Possibly. But then, why the universe here, now, and in particular?

I wouldn't know.

Sneaky. I like it.

I saw this coming, but still.

Yes. Which is why I didn't conclude anything.

Meh. You're an iota more likely to hit on the right answer with a guess than you are by not trying, so...

[Four-sided Triangles]

Well, not entirely. I bring you again to the Big Bang, which there are quite some holes in.

No there aren't. This is like saying evolution has holes because we can't yet explain abiogenesis. It's not correct.

Read it, found discussions more on shape then on either the universe's creation or, well, anything else I mentioned.

The point was the attitude of papers, not the exact content. Fine, here's some on the origins:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0111/0111030v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0111/0111098v2.pdf

It seems to me you care more about the motive, which is why I mentioned the scientists like Darwin, hm?

I care about the false equivalence.

[Genivaria]

I believe in the God Emperor, who is my protector. So, I voted Other.

Burn, purge, kill!

So....Christianity?

[New Heliopolis]

No there aren't. This is like saying evolution has holes because we can't yet explain abiogenesis. It's not correct.

A failure in the theory's ability to predict events is irrelevant?

The point was the attitude of papers, not the exact content. Fine, here's some on the origins:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0111/0111030v2.pdf
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0111/0111098v2.pdf

It doesn't really matter because of scientists like Darwin. Oy.

I care about the false equivalence.

No you don't. Not because it's a false equivalence. You care about proving that scientists are better somehow than theists, notwithstanding that those are groups with an overlap.

[Norstal]

Burn, purge, kill!

So....Christianity?

What? Christianity is a peaceful religion, heretic. KILL THE HERETICS!

[Nightkill the Emperor]

I believe in the God Emperor, who is my protector. So, I voted Other.

Burn, purge, kill!

FOR THE EMPEROR!

[Four-sided Triangles]

A failure in the theory's ability to predict events is irrelevant?

No, Einstein, a failure in a theory to address issues that IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO ADDRESS is irrelevant. Evolution has to do with the diversity of life, and how life changes over time. It is not a theory of the origins of life, and therefore the fact that it doesn't explain where life originally came from is no more a strike against it than the fact that the germ theory of disease can't explain Saturn's rings is a strike against antibiotics.

It doesn't really matter because of scientists like Darwin. Oy.

What about Darwin?

No you don't. Not because it's a false equivalence. You care about proving that scientists are better somehow than theists, notwithstanding that those are groups with an overlap.

I'm not defending scientists. I'm defending science. Science is a methodology. Fucking incredible!

[New Heliopolis]

A failure in the theory's ability to predict events is irrelevant?

No, Einstein, a failure in a theory to address issues that IT WAS NEVER MEANT TO ADDRESS is irrelevant. Evolution has to do with the diversity of life, and how life changes over time. It is not a theory of the origins of life, and therefore the fact that it doesn't explain where life originally came from is no more a strike against it than the fact that the germ theory of disease can't explain Saturn's rings is a strike against antibiotics.

The Big Bang most certainly failed to address why the universe expanded a lot faster than it was supposed to.

But I suppose you don't really care about the actual point I was making.

What about Darwin?

If you remember what Norstal mentioned about him (I wasn't thinking of him initially, but hey), he tested evolution to prove god. As did Louis Pasteur test Germ Theory. As the entire Big Bang theory existed to prove.

I'm not defending scientists. I'm defending science. Science is a methodology. Fucking incredible!

I wasn't talking about science, in case you didn't notice. Science can't, at the moment, prove crap about this, and I finished with that on the particular subject. Meanwhile, you were talking about what scientists were doing, what actual scientists have written on the subject, etc.

Fucking incredible, really.

[Gauntleted Fist]

Burn, purge, kill!

FOR THE EMPEROR!

Those who oppose thee
Shall know the wrath of Man.
Field and forest shall burn,
The seas shall rise and devour them,
The wind shall tear their nations
From the face of the earth,
Lightning shall rain down from the sky,
They shall cry out to their false gods,
And find silence.

[Four-sided Triangles]

The Big Bang most certainly failed to address why the universe expanded a lot faster than it was supposed to.

But I suppose you don't really care about the actual point I was making.

Yes it does. Positive cosmological constant. Why's a positive cosmological constant there? Not the big bang theory's problem.

If you remember what Norstal mentioned about him (I wasn't thinking of him initially, but hey), he tested evolution to prove god. As did Louis Pasteur test Germ Theory. As the entire Big Bang theory existed to prove.

And this has what to do with science using the argument from ignorance?

I wasn't talking about science, in case you didn't notice. Science can't, at the moment, prove crap about this, and I finished with that on the particular subject.

Which is why science ISN'T SUGGESTING THAT IT CAN!