|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 15, 2017 5:39:54 GMT -7
Yes you finally get it. Most people start with Bronze Age except atheists making a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 15, 2017 6:54:48 GMT -7
Yes, you don't get it. [bullhorn to rabid's ear]Scientists publish papers about the Cu age.[/bullhorn to rabid's ear] So the Stone age THEN Cu then bronze. Unless you're a weasel that wants to pull a shenanigan and pretend it didn't exist.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 15, 2017 8:17:18 GMT -7
Wow - seeing some really silly arguing going on here...
Equating religion to the Copper age (CU age?). There is literally NO point to this at all. Just because the Hitchens anti-theists are obsessed with that (relatively) short period where humans tried to use pure copper to produce edged tools and weapons, doesn't mean a damn thing at all.
Lay off and get back on subject folks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 15, 2017 21:24:33 GMT -7
The point which came up was relating religion to the Cu age, where it originated from and how it commands you to behave. From a time before Bronze was discovered.
I wouldn't give a rat's ass if it were treated the same way we treat Greek mythology. But it isn't. It's used as a guide for living life and making decisions based upon 5000 year old orders and attempts at explanations. You've got a political system that uses it against the ignorant to remain in power, and that ignore the massive dangers from doing this. I'll continue to draw attention to the fact it is LUDICROUS to follow 5000 year old directions written for people from that time period. I'll continue to draw attention to the fact that the statements it makes about reality are almost all entirely WRONG. I'll continue to draw attention to the fact that treating them as if they were true is equivalent to a retarded diagnosis. I'll continue to try and educate the lurkers, because the future needs to be made by intelligent people, not those who claim "invisible magic skydaddy!".
A Universe that comes from NOTHING educates people and shows them they can easily drop the invisible magic skydaddy fantasy.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 16, 2017 5:44:07 GMT -7
nice poem iron nerd!
Creatio ex nihilo is a theological position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 16, 2017 12:10:21 GMT -7
If ironnerd is trying to make a point with his poem, I do not see it. (What the point may be - not the poem. I see that. I'm not making cowardly remarks on second hand quotes). Likely, he is saying nothing relevant - like in his later post; based upon yet another FALSE statement from rabid. If he wants to look like a child wandering into a minefield, let him. ONCE AGAIN rabid: STOP assigning religious creationist motivations to those who DO NOT HAVE THEM. I did NOT say "creation". I did NOT imply any type of "creator" I did NOT imply belief of any form. STOP misrepresenting what I say in your terms. I do NOT agree with you on this matter AT ALL, because what you say is WRONG and FALSE. The Universe arises out of nothing, it is not at all religion. That is YOUR purview, NOT Scientists. ONCE AGAIN, go and learn something instead of spouting bullshit. www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo&t=2sYou can troll all you like. I don't give a damn; I will simply state facts each and every time and expose your bullshitting all the more. |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 16, 2017 18:47:43 GMT -7
I'm not trolling.
You are arguing that the universe was created from nothing. Ergot this proves that God didn't create the universe from nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 17, 2017 7:17:46 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 17, 2017 8:38:24 GMT -7
Adding Invisible magic skydaddy breaks the Nothing. So, NO, the model that rabid wants is WRONG.
You can't have A Universe From Nothing with any fantasy character added to create it, Invisible magic skydaddy, Easter Bunny, Santa Clause, Tooth Fairy, Thor, the Kraken, the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
because then it is no longer a Universe From Nothing. It is also religion.
_____________________
I fail to see how a model is "in serious danger". The model might be incomplete and needs to change with new data offering new insight. It sounds like media sensationalism. You might want to err on the side of caution, and say that the current model might 'need to change'.
It's also important to be cautious. More data needed.
____________________
ironnerd can talk in a monotone if he likes. I do not.
|
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 17, 2017 9:07:47 GMT -7
Quite aware of that Gorn.
It could be instrument error - could be some interaction that they aren't counting on etc...
That's why they repeat the experiment over and over again, and check everything over and over again as the go along.
If the odds reach millions to one in favor of this "change", then we have an issue to resolve.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 17, 2017 9:40:31 GMT -7
@ironnerd starcruiser pay careful attention to exactly what gorn is doing. Gorn you need to be honest about what physicists know and do not know about your theory. He has already allowed unfalsifiability into the mix, he is also pretending the question is answered when it is only a theory and a fragile one at that. Your ignorance of philosophy and theology is evident, or you would have known you can't disprove Creatio ex nihilo by offering the same up as evidence. Also to narrowly avoid the paradox you suddenly have a problem with the word "creates" and variations thereof. Until you have empirical proof, in fact you are putting up cosmological tooth faries, yetis, Easter bunnies and abominable snowmen. . Stop offering up your unfalsifiable theory, devoid of empirical evidence or predictive power, as if it is settled fact. |
|
|
|
Post by starcruiser on Jul 18, 2017 21:37:59 GMT -7
^ If he did that, he would be acknowledging that he was doing something wrong to start with! CORE IMPLOSION IMMINENT!
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 19, 2017 4:50:07 GMT -7
I'm not a physicist, don't pretend to be one. But I read on this topic frequently. The point is science doesn't allow for unfalsifiability, or potential unfalsifiability at ALL. Point blank, end of story. Since someone is arguing in favor of this hypocrisy for the benefit of supposed lurkers, I can't let that pass in a public forum. I referenced this before, so I suppose I have to present the proof. Physicists abandon the laws of physics if it produces results that they're uncomfortable with or that appear supportive of theology. Antagonism for religion on the part of the scientific delqyd the acceptance of the Big Bang because of the scientific community's displeasure with it confirming the traditional theological position of creatio ex nihilo. But also because no laws of physics can apply to the singularity itself (no form of physics can apply to it, since physical values are at infinity at the singularity, and so it is not possible to perform the arithmetical operations of addition or subtraction on them; and in the sense that the singularity is beyond creation, as it is not a part of spacetime, but rather is the boundary of space and time). I already said that the originator of the Big Bang theory, circa 1930, was Roman Catholic priest and physicist Prof. Georges Lemaître; and it was endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951, long before the scientific community finally came to accept it. That's not all, Rabbi Moses Maimonides and Saint Thomas Aquinas, from their readings of biblical scripture, had both defined God as the Uncaused First Cause (which is equivalent to Aristotle's conception of God as the Unmoved Mover), hence physics community was reluctant to indirectly confirm with the Big Bang that God exists per this traditional definition of God. physicists abandon physical law due to their theological discomfort with the Big Bang. before I referenced an article by physicist Prof. Frank J. Tipler, here is the quote where he references physicist Prof. Steven Weinberg: "" The most radical ideas are those that are perceived to support religion, specifically Judaism and Christianity. When I was a student at MIT in the late 1960s, I audited a course in cosmology from the physics Nobelist Steven Weinberg. He told his class that of the theories of cosmology, he preferred the Steady State Theory because "it *least* resembled the account in Genesis" ). In his book *The First Three Minutes* (chapter 6), Weinberg explains his earlier rejection of the Big Bang Theory: "Our mistake is not that we take our theories too seriously, but that we do not take them seriously enough. It is always hard to realize that these numbers and equations we play with at our desks have something to do with the real world. Even worse, there often seems to be a general agreement that certain phenomena are just not fit subjects for respectable theoretical and experimental effort." ]In case you missed it that's one reference that directly disproves the notion that every scientific experiment disproves God. lmao. Despit this, Weinberg himself stated in his book that the Big Bang Theory was an automatic consequence of standard thermodynamics, standard gravity theory, and standard nuclear physics. All of the basic physics one needs for the Big Bang Theory was well established in the 1930s, some two decades before the theory was worked out. Thus Weinberg rejected standard physics not because he didn't take the equations of physics seriously, but because he did not like the religious implications of the laws of physics. ... "" More examples: Frank J. Tipler, "Refereed Journals: Do They Insure Quality or Enforce Orthodoxy?", Progress in Complexity, Information, and Design (PCID), Vols. 2.1 and 2.2 (January-June 2003). www.iscid.org/papers/Tipler_PeerReview_070103.pdf Also published as Chapter 7 in Uncommon Dissent: Intellectuals Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing, edited by William A. Dembski, "Foreword" by John Wilson (Wilmington, Del.: ISI Books, 2004). Prof. Stephen Hawking reinforces the antagonism of the scientific community for religion, which causes them to discard physics. In his book The Illustrated A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam Books, 1996), p. 62: "" Many people do not like the idea that time has a beginning, probably because it smacks of divine intervention. (The Catholic Church, on the other hand, seized on the big bang model and in 1951 officially pronounced it to be in accordance with the Bible). There were therefore a number of attempts to avoid the conclusion that there had been a big bang. "" p. 179 of the same book, he writes. "In real time, the universe has a beginning and an end at singularities that form a boundary to spacetime and at which the laws of science break down." Need more? Dr. Robert Jastrow, founding director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, God and the Astronomers (New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1978), p. 113: "" This religious faith of the scientist [that there is no First Cause] is violated by the discovery that the world had a beginning under conditions in which the known laws of physics are not valid, and as a product of forces or circumstances we cannot discover. When that happens, the scientist has lost control. If he really examined the implications, he would be traumatized. "" also Robert jastrow: "Science and Discomfiting Discoveries" in John Ross Schroeder, Bill Bradford and Mario Seiglie, Life's Ultimate Question: Does God Exist? (United Church of God, 2000). www.ucg.org/booklets/GE/science-discovery.asp , www.gnmagazine.org/booklets/GE/GE.pdfEven MORE shenanigans: Mariano, "In the Beginning ... Cosmology, Part I", Atheism is Dead, February 11, 2009. atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/02/in-beginning-cosmology-part-i-pre-big.htmlAgain, the only way to avoid the theological implications in cosmology is to resort to theories which have no experimental support and violate the known laws of physics. See Prof. Stephen Hawking's paper on the black hole information issue which is dependent on the conjectured string theory-based anti-de Sitter space/conformal field theory correspondence (AdS/CFT correspondence). See S. W. Hawking, "Information loss in black holes", Physical Review D, Vol. 72, No. 8 (October 2005), Art. No. 084013; also at arXiv:hep-th/0507171, July 18, 2005. arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0507171Prof. Hawking's paper is based upon empirically unconfirmed physics which violate the known laws of physics. It's an impressive testament to the Big Bang theory's correctness, as Hawking implicitly confirms that the known laws of physics require the universe to collapse in finite time. Hawking realizes that the black hole information issue must be resolved without violating unitarity, yet he's forced to abandon the known laws of physics in order to avoid unitarity violation without the universe collapsing. Compare the (making shit up) approach to doing physics with that of Prof. Frank J. Tipler, who bases his Omega Point/Feynman-Weinberg-DeWitt quantum gravity/Standard Model Theory of Everything (TOE) strictly on the known laws of physics, and that of Prof. David Deutsch (inventor of the quantum computer, being the first person to mathematically describe the workings of such a device, and winner of the Institute of Physics' 1998 Paul Dirac Medal and Prize for his work). They both believe we have to take the known laws of physics as explanations of how the world works, that is, until physical laws are experimentally refuted. You CANNOT allow unfalsifiability because at that point it isn't science. |
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 19, 2017 22:41:22 GMT -7
EVERYONE pay careful attention to exactly what rabid is doing. Rabid, it is not a "theory" and it is not "mine". I'm not "Allowing unfalsifiability into Science" by positing an hypothesis that MIGHT be unprovable. You seem to ignore the fact that it might just as well BE provable; we don't know yet, and might not know until we evolve. That doesn't default it to unfalsifiable. Are you demanding a definitive answer right now just like the religious do? It appears that way.
Allowing the different kind of unfalsifiable FANTASY of religion, faith and belief into Science is impossible. Don't bullshit how they're the same case. They aren't.
I do not "pretend the question is answered", I have stated several times that it LOOKS LIKE this situation to a certainty of billionth decimal place. So STOP your BULLSHIT, and STOP claiming I said things I did not. Trump.
Your ignorance of Science is evident, or you would have known the difference between a "theory" and an "hypothesis".
Empirical proof supports hypotheses. For this one, we have the afore-mentioned model of inflation that fits the facts. Don't hand me your bullshit about the hypothesis being unprovable, EVERYTHING in Science is strictly unprovable; you only have greater confidence as thousands of trials all support the given model. Paleontologists add to knowledge all the time without ever seeing a live extinct animal, and using only indirect clues. Only an ignorant dolt would deny its status as a Science. The same can be said for cosmological models (e.g. singularities, galaxies disappearing from detection due to expansion, subatomic virtual particles) that cannot ever be seen, but hold up over all other theories and fit the observed facts (indirect clues!!). We know they can be wrong, but they are not at all the equal of your religious bullshit, so cut the crap. Gravity itself might also be unfalsifiable, but I don't see you getting your pantyhose in a knot over that.
Now that I think of it, I am not the one who started yipping "unfalsifiable". It sounds alot like a philosophy term. Now that I think of it, we can easily falsify a Universe from Nothing if we find the minimal resolution at a subatomic scale of the Universe and can prove it is a simulation. THAT would falsify our Universe from Nothing - it definitively came from something we cannot yet explore. An open or closed Universe would NOT come from Nothing. It LOOKS like we have falsified that and proven it flat; thus it came from Nothing. Nice attempt at gaslighting, religious philosopher. You blew it.
______________________
If YOU are "wasting your time" in MY thread, ironnerd, then GTFO. You're not getting ME out of MY thread! Only JA can do that. You didn't mind making cowardly uninformed posts about statements taken out of context, but its hilarious that you're just as wrong now. I'm replying to bullshit. I don't allow it to pass vs Science. If you or rabid continue to circularly bullshit with philosophy and religion, I will continue to circularly shoot it down. You don't know what my intent is, so once again STFU. I have said several times my intention is to communicate what Science I DO know (and btw, you're WRONG AGAIN, I never claimed to be an amateur "Anthropologist" but a PALEONtologist, I do know about Cosmology, a bit about Quantum Physics, and about Climatology since it's related to past extinctions.) So STFU, you don't know what my credentials are, you DON'T GET to assign what you fantasize to me, and you have still FAILED to prove any statement you have about this particular Science. You did NOT establish that "there is no such thing as nothing"; despite your cannabis sounding wisdumb.
Quantum Physicists and Cosmologists DO know that the Universe might very well come from Nothing, it is upheld in current observations and models. If it were not upheld, they would not propose it as an HYPOTHESIS. It would be a crackpot fantasy. Like flying over a crying Paleontologist.
the Invisible magic skydaddy is not even part of it; adding it like rabid is so horny to do, by definition makes the Universe NOT NOTHING. D'uh. Football!
I don't post in here "tongue in cheek." If you want to do that, make your own MacBeth thread to go with your MacBeth posts. If you claim to "ignore" someone, then actually ignore them. Don't be a hypocritical coward that makes snide and ignorant posts on statements out of context. You're the product of 4.1 billion years of successful evolution, can't you at least act like it once in a while? And maybe not triple post?
____________________________
Science doesn't talk about "creation" implying any "creator". Just so we're clear on what the religious troll might be trying to pull. Physical values are NOT at ∞ at a singularity, the math is. It's a common error of the layman, and especially, philosophers. Maybe you should go and look at how Calculus works to figure out summing up an "infinite" series.
There's no Physicist I know of that "confirms Invisible magic skydaddy exists because of Big Bang". I never even heard this obviously religious based bullshit until you brought it up. Invisible magic skydaddy was never any part of learning Big Bang (or any other Science) that I ever took. It simply doesn't apply, since there is ZERO EVIDENCE for it, (and plenty of evidence against it,) unlike gravity = expansion, for example. D'uh.
Ooooo, a religious physicist thinks Big Bang proves invisible magic skydaddy because it vaguely resembles the account in its Cu-age manifesto. Meanwhile, we'll ignore every other Science disproof that happens again and again and again and again over dozens of fields. Good call.
Once again, you DON'T GET to ascribe religious "faith" to a subject that is defined by precisely NOT that.
You clearly drop whatever Science you do know in order to engage in religious promotion. You've done nothing but FAIL, since you present fantasies that have no shred of evidence for them. Good work.
And Ironnerd says I waste time?!?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dalrock on Jul 19, 2017 23:04:41 GMT -7
screw you rabid if you were a Christian you wouldnt make fun of less intelligent people.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 20, 2017 3:45:18 GMT -7
That has not been proven at all. Given that I shot down basically every (adjective) bullshit statement he made, I wouldn't call him "intelligent". He's not stupid, just ignorant of alot of Science.
If he isn't religious, he sure sounds exactly like he is.
As for you, making an empty charge and not supporting it with anything demonstrates your position on the intelligence scale.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 20, 2017 16:06:08 GMT -7
I reserve the right to reply further.
@ironnerd don't go that route. These tactics as old as the Internet.
Step 1, create a post with passive aggressive or indirect invectives mingled with vague truths or generalities.
Step 2 opponent reacts with outrage at invectives.
Step 3 finally get specific about statements, or gripe about semantics in your opponents reply, while misrepresenting their anger as proof of your moral and intellectual superiority.
, @ironnerd, I couldn't let you enter into some inane non-aggression pact with a sociopath with pallid slime for blood who would only take your understandable exhaustion with his banality as proof of his superiority.
Once you get past their bull crap you realize there's very little substance behind the trolling.
Also gorn you totally missed the point again. Of course someone mentioned Gahahahahhhaaaahd so small wonder you lost any sense of nuance. You can't even let go of your pretense of scientific certainty without being an ass about it. This is because to you science is absolutely as malleable as you need it to be depending on the argument at hand.
Dating a genius is irrelevant, your "physicist friends" are irrelevant. Having smart friends doesn't compensate for your illiteracy. I gas lighted no one, you just didn't know what the fuck you were talking about. Naturally that doesn't stop you and it never will.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 21, 2017 7:22:32 GMT -7
ironnerd - Once again, you don't know what I get or don't get. To be tongue in cheek is to seek commonality in humor. I perfectly "get it" because I use it in the museum with others of my mindset. I simply reject your attempt at humor and groupism, because I've heard it before (in high school) and it wasn't funny the first time. I instead answer seriously, to show that this politician method of trying to get everyone in agreement through humor won't work, because I reject tricking someone into being on the wrong side. So keep trying. You'll keep failing. You were wrong. Get over it.
rabid's post was trying to equate Krauss (and myself, advocating a Universe from Nothing,) to the human failings of Scientists almost 100 years ago. He was wrong. Get over it.
ironnerd, I don't care where you post or not. I, for one, won't let bullshit (that includes tongue in cheek) pass. I was simply stating that you're a coward to ignore someone, and THEN make snide comments about quotes taken out of the context of a fuller post. If you want to continue acting like a high school level of development, go right ahead. You were wrong. Get over it.
It's amazing how rabid is suddenly a psychologist himself! Unfortunately he has misdiagnosed. Sociopath diagnostics:
Lack of empathy. (Please inform all my students that I have gone the extra mile for (maybe 10% of a few thousand over the past 26 years) that it's simply a manipulation!)
Difficult relationships. (Please inform my wife of 15 years that our 37 year relationship has been DIFFICULT! I have a few friends that long as well!)
Manipulativeness (oooo, manipulation through overt and direct statements! How avant garde!)
Deceitfulness (oooo, deceitfulness through overt and direct statements! How avant garde!)
Callousness (or, as Scientists call it, THE TRUTH.)
Hostility (or, as Scientists call it, especially when addressing the GOP, THE TRUTH.)
Irresponsibility (guess my employers for the past decade missed that one entirely! What damage I must have done to irreplaceable, precious fossils!)
Impulsivity (guess my employers for the past decade missed that one entirely, too! What damage....precious fossils due to NOT following protocols patiently!!)
Risky behavior (see previous 2, also my wife of 15 years who missed that one, too.)
I'm not being tongue in cheek. I'm sarcastically showing rabid he once again is entirely WRONG. I find it far more effective than stating he is guilty of libel.
I could go on and demonstrate how he HAS gaslighted. But the post is long enough.
Also, making a global statement about how I am wrong - without proving it - is lazy, to be generous. It's a politician's move worthy of Trump. Philosophy always loses to demonstrable facts. The demonstrable facts are that the Universe looks, to billion decimal places like it is FLAT, supporting a Universe from Nothing. It is FALSIFIABLE, since it does NOT look, to billion decimal places like it is OPEN or CLOSED (which would show the Universe came from something instead: gravity <> expansion). You've been shot down, zombie. You've been demonstrated to be WRONG, and demonstrated to be BULLSHITTING. Let's see if you rise again.
You were wrong. Get over it.
If you don't like fighting, then don't state bullshit. I will counter it everywhere it pops up. Consider it my contribution to fighting Global Warming; a little Science literacy can go a long way. Hopefully you both will drop the philosophy for more proven facts.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 21, 2017 13:42:39 GMT -7
It's not bullshit. It's hit and miss thinking about how things ought to be is what makes philosophy bullshit.
What makes you think I never posted in "Ask Science"?
A Universe from Nothing (Flat) would have no "before" time; that was the last paragraph he was talking about. The other two Universes (Open and Closed) probably would have a before time. That cosmologist first talks about those possibilities; a closed Universe would be cyclic; Big Bang leads to expanding then contracting to form another Big Bang. But it would still need a starting point, and that makes no sense to human understanding - which doesn't mean to imply it's impossible. Saying it is impossible would be a philosophical statement.
Multiposting, along with necroposting, are discouraged on most forums.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 21, 2017 14:26:10 GMT -7
Gorn for the 100th time I don't care what you do away from this forum. Sure blah blah etc IRL you are a fine humanitarian. I don't care. On this forum, behavior like yours presents the aspect of a belligerent asshole and know it all who can't admit when he is wrong.
like how you suddenly decided this was a thing worthy of your consideration? Fresh from a rush to the Internet, I take it you have to do that a lot.
You are STILL wrong about the point I was making. Want to try again? How about I just bring your painfully slow deliberations to a close: I made a deliberate charge in answer to your erroneous claim that scientists, physicists in particular, don't act directly in response to the vagaries of religion. I posted reference in support that anyone can look up on their own, not vague non-opinions from unnamed physicist friends.
Wait till I get verification of your other unsourced claims.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 21, 2017 17:47:46 GMT -7
Wow, ironnerd, you're off meds or something. While I'd like to respond in kind to a depth 10x your intensity, I won't bring down this thread. For now. 1) I didn't say you said something ought to be. You misread my post. I said philosophy says what things ought to be. I said already, you DON'T KNOW what I think. I said already, I knowingly rejected your humor and responded to it seriously to expose you. Although you've exposed yourself quite hilariously with that post. I don't have an invisible magic skydaddy, so you FAIL AGAIN! ha. ha. ha. ha. ha. 2) I left Ask Science lonnnng ago, since they respect religion. www.smbc-comics.com/?id=820 I don't give a shit what you think or not, I have nothing to prove to you - you ignore proof when it's convenient, anyway. 3) Once again, you can't have a Universe from nothing if you add an invisible magic skydaddy to it. You then have SOMETHING. D'uh. Football. 4) Despite your rich fantasy world, I'm not "on your dick". I'm stating facts once again, and I will not stop. Ignore them to your peril. ___________________ I'm answering questions rabid. I don't care if you don't give a damn or not, that was not the point; it was proving you WRONG, YET AGAIN, on statements you made. You made a libel statement, I proved you to be lying. I could add some adjectives. I can perfectly well admit when I am wrong, and have done so many times. You can't work at a museum if you cannot admit when you're wrong. Science is all about correcting yourself when you are wrong. Seriously. Haven't you gotten it yet? I'm nothing like you. SOME Scientists, ~100 years ago, DID respond to the vagaries of religion in a time when it had far more power? Fine. Science corrected itself, didn't it? THAT'S the strength of Science! A HANDFUL of scientists on the payroll of tobacco companies claimed smoking was not proven to "cause" cancer in the 80's. They've been corrected since. So it really doesn't matter what some crackpot yelps on the internet; Scientists know the Universe came from Nothing, and they will laugh at your bullshit. You keep on whining about the philosophy term "falsifiable", so I thought I would shoot that down, too. I don't "have" to do anything. I respond to bullshit when I feel like it. Other times, I enjoy gaming with an extended group of friends. Don't go making it look like I'm some fantasy archetype of yours! I'm sure your research in your masterful "deliberate charges" has you in bated breath. |
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Jul 21, 2017 18:34:34 GMT -7
You are wrong about the certainty of Krausse's theory of "something from nothing", you have no empirical evidence and your only proofs so far are mathematical. You haven't cited a source for your statistic so you fucking made it up. We will see how that works out for you. Given that this theory is contrary to established physical laws which haven't been empirically refuted I'm sticking with the Big Bang until Krausse has something definitive.
Science requires evidence, a hypothesis requires empirical proof, theories are derived thereby. You crossed the rubicon when you said that some of these theories may be unprovable, most likely because they are UNTESTABLE. That means they are unfalsifiable.
You assert a ridiculously obscure statistic that you pulled out of your ass for a theory with no empirical support. You started out arguing for scientific certainty as opposed to "unprovable bullshit" now you pivot toward uncertainty as it suits your argument. Your scientific opinions are worthless.
My argument is consistent. God is unfalsifiable, it doesn't belong in science. There is no "hypothesis" where there is nothing testable. You on the other hand expect one unfalsifiable concept to disprove another .
He is pissed at you for being a douchnozzle and you try to laugh it off like you had it planned all along. This just shows you aren't serious to begin with. there's no reason to continue. I'm done dealing with you or taking you seriously...some people find it enjoyable to pour salt on slugs but it's hardly a constructive exercise.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Jul 21, 2017 19:11:09 GMT -7
pffftttt HAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!! Not one shred of evidence - unless it's for a need to be sedated.
______________________________
Here's the reference you asked for: ISBN-13: 978-1451624465. Let me know when you've read it and the references. We can take it from there, philosopher.
Something that is untestable does not mean it is unfalsifiable. Let's assume Universe from Nothing can never be tested (although it already has in observation of gravity = expansion). It can still be FALSIFIED by proving we have an open or closed universe. So, who is pulling crap out of their ass, exactly?
Invisible magic skydaddy IS falsifiable, the same way you can falsify fairies, unicorns, and the griffin. It's an hypothesis, and it can be tested the same way you test T.rex being an herbivore. You look at evidence (or the lack of), treat the claims with serious Scientific light, consider Psychology of the writers and the COPPER Age they lived in, and get a good answer for it.
It looks like I'm being a douchenozzle simply for daring to disagree with you two. I totally laugh at that, and certainly at the behavior of someone who's bound to be banned. I never planned anything, like I have said SEVERAL TIMES: I will NOT allow bullshit about Science to pass. You can count on it that I am deadly serious. Run off if you want, you have still been proven WRONG, and you have still failed to counter it with anything.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gorn on Aug 1, 2017 16:53:49 GMT -7
I did not "admit" to "being a jerk", I stated something along the lines of having no problem stating things as they are without adulation or pretense, and not seeing any need to treat willing delusion with kid gloves. If you don't like my forthright nature, don't post bullshit as you just did, yet again.
You should look before 2013, and not with "Gorn" as a username. Maybe look to see religion being shot down over and over. I hadn't yet found the useful phrase "invisible magic skydaddy". I don't recall coming across people like you there, either.
________________________________________
Nothing new about nothing.
There are alot of vids on Youtube explaining it from Lawrence Krauss.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabid on Aug 3, 2017 4:45:26 GMT -7
Thanks, that was my point exactly. I thought the references would have helped.
|
|
