Are Religion and Science Compatible? 2.0

[Celritannia]

Yup, moving goal posts and bringing in pathetic and stupid false dichotomies.

I am simply noting that ultimately, more than just observation and peer review will be required if you want to get anywhere.

And to assume anything exists outside the universe does require scientific investigation to be peer reviewed and checked.

[Godular]

We can prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform. If it is the same at all points on the macro scale, then there is no functional indication of finite size at all. In this instance the presumption that you're making is that the universe is finite, when there is no evidence to suggest this.

Except that in order for the universe to be infinite, it would have to grow at infinite rate.

Flawed assumption. It was infinitely large at the start of... I suppose we might as well just call it our current iteration for all we know.

And we can't prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform,

Can and have. I just told you how.

Since the universe could possibly be decillions of times larger than the observable universe, using the observable universe to predict the nature of the rest is rather presumptive, like using the nature of a bacteria to conclude the nature of the galaxy.

Now you're just spouting wholly unfounded speculation. Wait... you were doing that in the first place...

[Antityranicals]

I am simply noting that ultimately, more than just observation and peer review will be required if you want to get anywhere.

And to assume anything exists outside the universe does require scientific investigation to be peer reviewed and checked.

Given how I have already concluded that I am quite certain that even if the human race advances a billion years, there will never emerge scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God. We are left, therefore, to logic.

[Antityranicals]

Except that in order for the universe to be infinite, it would have to grow at infinite rate.

Flawed assumption. It was infinitely large at the start of... I suppose we might as well just call it our current iteration for all we know.

And we can't prove that it has no edge and is functionally uniform,

Can and have. I just told you how.

Since the universe could possibly be decillions of times larger than the observable universe, using the observable universe to predict the nature of the rest is rather presumptive, like using the nature of a bacteria to conclude the nature of the galaxy.

Now you're just spouting wholly unfounded speculation. Wait... you were doing that in the first place...

I thought you were assuming that the universe is even larger than decillions of times larger than the observable universe. What applies to my statement applies yet further to your infinite universe theory.

[Celritannia]

And to assume anything exists outside the universe does require scientific investigation to be peer reviewed and checked.

Given how I have already concluded that I am quite certain that even if the human race advances a billion years, there will never emerge scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God. We are left, therefore, to logic.

Alright, then it is logical for me to say a magical rainbow unicorn created the big bang. That's logical to me, so it is logical to you.

[Godular]

And to assume anything exists outside the universe does require scientific investigation to be peer reviewed and checked.

Given how I have already concluded that I am quite certain that even if the human race advances a billion years, there will never emerge scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God. We are left, therefore, to logic.

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

[Albrenia]

Given how I have already concluded that I am quite certain that even if the human race advances a billion years, there will never emerge scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God. We are left, therefore, to logic.

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

Dang ol' Occam and his Razor, amirite?

[Antityranicals]

Given how I have already concluded that I am quite certain that even if the human race advances a billion years, there will never emerge scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God. We are left, therefore, to logic.

Alright, then it is logical for me to say a magical rainbow unicorn created the big bang. That's logical to me, so it is logical to you.

Do you have premises I agree with, as well as a valid logical formulation to tie it together? If so, then yes. But I doubt it...

[Celritannia]

Alright, then it is logical for me to say a magical rainbow unicorn created the big bang. That's logical to me, so it is logical to you.

Do you have premises I agree with, as well as a valid logical formulation to tie it together? If so, then yes. But I doubt it...

Sure.
The twinkling lights we see in the sky is the exhaling breath from the magical unicorn which formed the universe.

[Antityranicals]

Given how I have already concluded that I am quite certain that even if the human race advances a billion years, there will never emerge scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God. We are left, therefore, to logic.

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

There is nothing logical about assuming a null hypothesis. That was invented as a scientific tool, not a logical necessity. And I didn't say there would never be evidence, just that there would never be scientific evidence. Beyond, of course, the Big Bang, which suggests, but I will admit does not alone prove, the existence of God.

[Godular]

Flawed assumption. It was infinitely large at the start of... I suppose we might as well just call it our current iteration for all we know.



Can and have. I just told you how.



Now you're just spouting wholly unfounded speculation. Wait... you were doing that in the first place...

I thought you were assuming that the universe is even larger than decillions of times larger than the observable universe. What applies to my statement applies yet further to your infinite universe theory.

No, we have evidence supporting the fact that it is infinite, and you are trying to throw unfounded conclusions to contest it. You have no evidence that it is X times larger than our observable universe. You have no evidence to counter the model of our uniform and infinite universe that we have established by observation and peer review. It is indeed a scientific theory, which means it has significant amounts of evidence and has been shown to be predictive.

In response, you are spouting bullshit and trying to claim it has the same level of standing. Erroneously so.

[Antityranicals]

Do you have premises I agree with, as well as a valid logical formulation to tie it together? If so, then yes. But I doubt it...

Sure.
The twinkling lights we see in the sky is the exhaling breath from the magical unicorn which formed the universe.

I reject that premise. Try again.

[Kowani]

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

There is nothing logical about assuming a null hypothesis. That was invented as a scientific tool, not a logical necessity. And I didn't say there would never be evidence, just that there would never be scientific evidence. Beyond, of course, the Big Bang, which suggests, but I will admit does not alone prove, the existence of God.

It does not, but that would require you understanding what the Big Bang is.

[Celritannia]

Sure.
The twinkling lights we see in the sky is the exhaling breath from the magical unicorn which formed the universe.

I reject that premise. Try again.

You see how you reject my premise? Yeah, this is why I reject yours, because it is illogical.

[Alvecia]

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

There is nothing logical about assuming a null hypothesis.

Not assuming the null hypothesis necessarily means accepting illogical assumptions.

[Antityranicals]

I thought you were assuming that the universe is even larger than decillions of times larger than the observable universe. What applies to my statement applies yet further to your infinite universe theory.

No, we have evidence supporting the fact that it is infinite, and you are trying to throw unfounded conclusions to contest it. You have no evidence that it is X times larger than our observable universe. You have no evidence to counter the model of our uniform and infinite universe that we have established by observation and peer review. It is indeed a scientific theory, which means it has significant amounts of evidence and has been shown to be predictive.

In response, you are spouting bullshit and trying to claim it has the same level of standing. Erroneously so.

You are guessing based upon the observable universe that the entire universe is just like it. If that's not bullshit, I don't know what is.

[Celritannia]

No, we have evidence supporting the fact that it is infinite, and you are trying to throw unfounded conclusions to contest it. You have no evidence that it is X times larger than our observable universe. You have no evidence to counter the model of our uniform and infinite universe that we have established by observation and peer review. It is indeed a scientific theory, which means it has significant amounts of evidence and has been shown to be predictive.

In response, you are spouting bullshit and trying to claim it has the same level of standing. Erroneously so.

You are guessing based upon the observable universe that the entire universe is just like it. If that's not bullshit, I don't know what is.

"How dare you believe in grounded scientific evidence."

[La Xinga]

Given how I have already concluded that I am quite certain that even if the human race advances a billion years, there will never emerge scientific evidence either for or against the existence of God. We are left, therefore, to logic.

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

Didn't I already tell you a proof a decent amount of time ago that you dismissed because "it cannot be reproduced" even though religion doesn't work that way?

[Albrenia]

No, we have evidence supporting the fact that it is infinite, and you are trying to throw unfounded conclusions to contest it. You have no evidence that it is X times larger than our observable universe. You have no evidence to counter the model of our uniform and infinite universe that we have established by observation and peer review. It is indeed a scientific theory, which means it has significant amounts of evidence and has been shown to be predictive.

In response, you are spouting bullshit and trying to claim it has the same level of standing. Erroneously so.

You are guessing based upon the observable universe that the entire universe is just like it. If that's not bullshit, I don't know what is.

It's better than assuming without evidence that it is different, to be honest. We work with the evidence we have.

[Godular]

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

There is nothing logical about assuming a null hypothesis.

There is everything logical about it. Without evidence to support your positive statement, there is no reason to conclude that your positive statement is in any way true. If we WERE to hold your positive statement as in any way true, we would logically be forced to accept any other positive statement as true to the same degree, in which case we must logically conclude that your God and Celritannia's Space Unicorn have equivalent standing. You refuse to acknowledge Celritannia's Unicorn as existing, but as the two have the same amount of evidence to support them, we must conclude that if we are to discard Celritannia's unicorn, so too must we discard your God.

[Antityranicals]

There is nothing logical about assuming a null hypothesis.

Not assuming the null hypothesis necessarily means accepting illogical assumptions.

Assuming the null hypothesis could also mean accepting illogical assumptions. The only way to avoid the possibility altogether is to not take a position until there is proof. As such, y'all should be agnostics. Anyway, I've got to sign off. It's been a good time, and I thank you all.

[Alvecia]

Not assuming the null hypothesis necessarily means accepting illogical assumptions.

Assuming the null hypothesis could also mean accepting illogical assumptions.

Such as?

[Godular]

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

Didn't I already tell you a proof a decent amount of time ago that you dismissed because "it cannot be reproduced" even though religion doesn't work that way?

Claiming that something 'doesn't work that way' is a cheap evasion. If you can't meet our standards, you have no business claiming equivalent stature.

[Godular]

No, we have evidence supporting the fact that it is infinite, and you are trying to throw unfounded conclusions to contest it. You have no evidence that it is X times larger than our observable universe. You have no evidence to counter the model of our uniform and infinite universe that we have established by observation and peer review. It is indeed a scientific theory, which means it has significant amounts of evidence and has been shown to be predictive.

In response, you are spouting bullshit and trying to claim it has the same level of standing. Erroneously so.

You are guessing based upon the observable universe that the entire universe is just like it.

We have no reason to treat it differently. There is no evidence that it behaves differently at point A than it does at point B, so trying to claim that there IS a difference when no such difference has any evidence to back it up is for all intents and purposes engaging in baseless speculation.

If that's not bullshit, I don't know what is.

Apparently, you can't identify bullshit. Explains a lot, really.

[Albrenia]

And logically, without evidence to support the positive statement of the existence of a god, we must default to the negation of that statement. To do anything else is illogical.

Didn't I already tell you a proof a decent amount of time ago that you dismissed because "it cannot be reproduced" even though religion doesn't work that way?

If the claims of a religion can't stand up to testing, it's almost certainly wrong. Even allowing for 'miraculous' events to be excused.