Skunks on Noah's Ark.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:22 AM)Valaista Wrote:  “God remains a viable hypothesis as the prime mover, however undefinable and untestable that conception may be.”

―E. O. Wilson

From Wikipedia:
Quote:A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

Hypothesis Definition

I am unaware of anyone having provided a testable scientific hypothesis for the existence of god. If you know of one, please post a link.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 08:32 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:23 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 07:13 AM)Valaista Wrote:  Ponder the possibility that our ancestors mistakenly took advance extra-terrestrial beings to be supernatural god (s) who descended from the heavens.

Pondering such possibilities is entertaining, but when the pondering evolves into investigating then the supposed evidence that is cited devolves back into story and legend and fiction.



"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." Revolutionary ideas always sound stupid. If people don't laugh at it, then there is something wrong with it! The key is to have many ideas all the time. Once you decide what idea you are going to devote your energies to, stop thinking of more. Never fear folly and rejection. It is usually an indicator that you are on the right path.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 08:37 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:22 AM)Valaista Wrote:  “God remains a viable hypothesis as the prime mover, however undefinable and untestable that conception may be.”

―E. O. Wilson

The problem is, the idea is nonfalsifiable. It's trivially easy to start with an unanswered question, then to speculate some random thing that "answers" all the questions by altering all its properties, ad hoc, until it "fits". Of course, there are an infinite number of these solutions to these problems, but people only ever talk about the ones that fit nicely into their world view.

What benefit do we gain from speculating God as a prime mover that we don't get from speculating fleems as the prime mover?

The whole point of science is to learn about our universe in ways that let us make meaningful predictions about things. Of what use is there to speculate hypotheticals that are not only unknowable, but that yield no useful information?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 08:44 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:29 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:22 AM)Valaista Wrote:  “God remains a viable hypothesis as the prime mover, however undefinable and untestable that conception may be.”

―E. O. Wilson

From Wikipedia:
Quote:A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

Hypothesis Definition

I am unaware of anyone having provided a testable scientific hypothesis for the existence of god. If you know of one, please post a link.

One man tried by climbing into a lion's cage at a zoo. It... didn't turn out as he planned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comm...d/.compact

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
26-10-2015, 08:47 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:44 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:29 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  From Wikipedia:

Hypothesis Definition

I am unaware of anyone having provided a testable scientific hypothesis for the existence of god. If you know of one, please post a link.

One man tried by climbing into a lion's cage at a zoo. It... didn't turn out as he planned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comm...d/.compact

Hmmm. Only one try does not constitute a thorough scientific inquiry. I mean, maybe his faith wasn't strong enough.

Perhaps some of the televangelists can step up...

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Fatbaldhobbit's post
26-10-2015, 08:48 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:29 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:22 AM)Valaista Wrote:  “God remains a viable hypothesis as the prime mover, however undefinable and untestable that conception may be.”

―E. O. Wilson

From Wikipedia:
Quote:A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research.

Hypothesis Definition

I am unaware of anyone having provided a testable scientific hypothesis for the existence of god. If you know of one, please post a link.

Viable
a. Capable of living, developing, or germinating under favorable conditions:

Never said tested, developing. Anyhow, For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is a bigger leap of faith than invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires a bigger leap of faith. And with out the multiverse, you cant explain the how 1/137.036 is the value of the fine-structure constant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 08:54 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:32 AM)Valaista Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:23 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  Pondering such possibilities is entertaining, but when the pondering evolves into investigating then the supposed evidence that is cited devolves back into story and legend and fiction.



"If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." Revolutionary ideas always sound stupid. If people don't laugh at it, then there is something wrong with it! The key is to have many ideas all the time. Once you decide what idea you are going to devote your energies to, stop thinking of more. Never fear folly and rejection. It is usually an indicator that you are on the right path.

Another kind of idea that sounds stupid: a stupid idea.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like julep's post
26-10-2015, 08:56 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:37 AM)RobbyPants Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:22 AM)Valaista Wrote:  “God remains a viable hypothesis as the prime mover, however undefinable and untestable that conception may be.”

―E. O. Wilson

The problem is, the idea is nonfalsifiable. It's trivially easy to start with an unanswered question, then to speculate some random thing that "answers" all the questions by altering all its properties, ad hoc, until it "fits". Of course, there are an infinite number of these solutions to these problems, but people only ever talk about the ones that fit nicely into their world view.

What benefit do we gain from speculating God as a prime mover that we don't get from speculating fleems as the prime mover?

The whole point of science is to learn about our universe in ways that let us make meaningful predictions about things. Of what use is there to speculate hypotheticals that are not only unknowable, but that yield no useful information?

“There is a most profound and beautiful question associated with the observed coupling constant, e – the amplitude for a real electron to emit or absorb a real photon. It is a simple number that has been experimentally determined to be close to 0.08542455. (My physicist friends won't recognize this number, because they like to remember it as the inverse of its square: about 137.03597 with about an uncertainty of about 2 in the last decimal place. It has been a mystery ever since it was discovered more than fifty years ago, and all good theoretical physicists put this number up on their wall and worry about it.) Immediately you would like to know where this number for a coupling comes from: is it related to pi or perhaps to the base of natural logarithms? Nobody knows. It's one of the greatest damn mysteries of physics: a magic number that comes to us with no understanding by man. You might say the "hand of God" wrote that number, and "we don't know how He pushed his pencil." We know what kind of a dance to do experimentally to measure this number very accurately, but we don't know what kind of dance to do on the computer to make this number come out, without putting it in secretly!”

“This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.” 1 John 1.5 (King James Bible)
The Number 137 is well-known throughout the physics community as the approximate inverse of the Fine Structure constant. It even has a name - alpha - which seems to be a supernatural coincidence given the context in which this number appears - John 1.1-5 - and the numerous highly significant identities associated with the Greek word Alpha.
The history and precise value of alpha can be found on the U.S. Government's National Institute of Standards and Technology site. The current value reported from NIST is:
alpha = 7.297352533 x 10-3
+/- 0.000000027 x 10-3 alpha-1 = 137.0359997
+/- 0.0000006
The value of alpha is extremely well established, with an uncertainty of about 2.7 x 10-11 - i.e. about three parts in 100 billion. It appears in Quantum Electrodynamics (aka QED) as the probability of interaction between Light and Matter. It has been the subject of intense study - many of the best physicists have felt that there must be some connection between alpha and the underlying structure of the Universe.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:54 AM)julep Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:32 AM)Valaista Wrote:  "If at first the idea is not absurd, then there is no hope for it." Revolutionary ideas always sound stupid. If people don't laugh at it, then there is something wrong with it! The key is to have many ideas all the time. Once you decide what idea you are going to devote your energies to, stop thinking of more. Never fear folly and rejection. It is usually an indicator that you are on the right path.

Another kind of idea that sounds stupid: a stupid idea.


M-Theory Science of Faith?
The nature of the universe requires that membranes from M-theory, if they exist at all, must be on the order of Planck length (10-35 m). Such a size is way less than microscopic or even well below subatomic particle sizes. In order to confirm such objects, one would need an accelerator on the order of 6,000,000,000,000,000 miles in circumference.2 It would seem likely, therefore, that confirmation of M-theory, based upon observable data, is impossible. Do such a set of theories that predict everything and anything and are not testable through observational data really fall within the realm of science?
According to Stephen Hawking, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." However, neither gravity nor any other law of physics provides a mechanism by which universe can be spontaneously created. The question Hawking never answered was why those laws of physics exist? Although it is possible for things such as particles to pop into existence from "nothing," it has never been shown that non-quantum-sized objects can perform such feats. Even if it were possible, why would it be expected that such laws of physics would exist that universes to be created from nothing? Why wouldn't a true nothing consist of no laws of physics and no possibility of anything popping into existence?
So, Stephen Hawking wants us to believe that a nebulous set of theories, which cannot be confirmed through observational data, absolutely establishes that an infinite number of diverse universes exist, having been created from laws of physics that just happen to allow this. John Horgan, a fellow atheist, says that the popularity of M-theory is the result of "stubborn refusal of enthusiasts to abandon their faith." Is it not more likely that a super-intelligent, powerful Being invented the laws of physics that produced the universe? Skeptics always ask, "Who created God?" Maybe they already have the answer to that question—nothing! After all, they seem to think that nothing is a powerful force for creating things!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2015, 09:07 AM
RE: Skunks on Noah's Ark.
(26-10-2015 08:47 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(26-10-2015 08:44 AM)Old Man Marsh Wrote:  One man tried by climbing into a lion's cage at a zoo. It... didn't turn out as he planned.

https://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comm...d/.compact

Hmmm. Only one try does not constitute a thorough scientific inquiry. I mean, maybe his faith wasn't strong enough.

Perhaps some of the televangelists can step up...

How does one gauge the strength of faith? Has the faithometer been invented yet?

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Old Man Marsh's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: