Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
so you can't answer the simple question.
or you won't answer the simple question.
or both.
sincere communication is not a game.
neither is honest, clear, straightforward use of language.
Both terms reflect things not consistent with science and scientific understanding.
Supernatural:
attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.
Magical:
Magical is distinct from the scientific. Magical speech is a ritual act. Magical language is distinct from scientific language because it is emotive and it converts words into symbols for emotions. On the other hand, in scientific language, words are tied to specific meanings and refer to an objective external reality. Magical language is therefore particularly adept at constructing metaphors that establish symbols and link magical rituals to the world.
so is the Creator.
the Creator made us all, and is accessible to all, each and everyone of us, regardless of which religion if any you follow.
Science can be demos rated to being the same regardless of religious beliefs. Science can be falsified. Evidence for life being stated by a creator seems to be lacking.
Your statement is nothing more than a claim you cannot back up.
Science can be demos rated to being the same regardless of religious beliefs. Science can be falsified. Evidence for life being stated by a creator seems to be lacking.
Your statement is nothing more than a claim you cannot back up.
So called string theory cannot be falsified , nor confirmed.
Its belief rests upon metaphysical faith yet its called science.
The evidence on the other side for creation in the fine tuned universe is so disturbing that atheists have invented a non provable multiverse to eliminate the tuning and by implication, the tuner.
If i had that level of blind faith i could be an atheist, alas i dont and therefore i must follow the evidence. https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk
So called string theory cannot be falsified , nor confirmed.
Its belief rests upon metaphysical faith yet its called science.
The evidence on the other side for creation in the fine tuned universe is so disturbing that atheists have invented a non provable multiverse to eliminate the tuning and by implication, the tuner.
If i had that level of blind faith i could be an atheist, alas i dont and therefore i must follow the evidence. https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk
Are you speaking about science or atheism? Yes fining tuning another meaningless term
So called string theory cannot be falsified , nor confirmed.
Its belief rests upon metaphysical faith yet its called science.
More dishonest assertions from you. String theory predicts certain features of physics, which is evidence for the theory. That is how science works, not faith.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
The evidence on the other side for creation in the fine tuned universe is so disturbing that atheists have invented a non provable multiverse to eliminate the tuning and by implication, the tuner.
Once again you misrepresent why the multiverse theories came about. They came about because they make far more sense than any of the creator gods, including yours.
And you have failed to present an argument as to why there should only be one universe. Yet you insist that an intelligent being just existed, and that it was intelligent enough to know how to set the 6 dials at just the exact value to create not just one universe, but a multiverse.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
If i had that level of blind faith i could be an atheist, alas i dont and therefore i must follow the evidence. https://youtu.be/z4E_bT4ecgk
By linking to a video of scientists taken out of context? A video of scientists who argue FOR a multiverse? A video claiming 'the anthropic principle failed even to atheist physicists', and then lists atheist physicists arguing FOR the anthropic principle?
That is not following the evidence, that is once again dishonestly linking to evidence and calling it blind faith.
More dishonest assertions from you. String theory predicts certain features of physics, which is evidence for the theory. That is how science works, not faith.
Once again you misrepresent why the multiverse theories came about. They came about because they make far more sense than any of the creator gods, including yours.
And you have failed to present an argument as to why there should only be one universe. Yet you insist that an intelligent being just existed, and that it was intelligent enough to know how to set the 6 dials at just the exact value to create not just one universe, but a multiverse.
By linking to a video of scientists taken out of context? A video of scientists who argue FOR a multiverse? A video claiming 'the anthropic principle failed even to atheist physicists', and then lists atheist physicists arguing FOR the anthropic principle?
That is not following the evidence, that is once again dishonestly linking to evidence and calling it blind faith.
err, harry, not totally correct. string theory is not falsifiable. You are also wrong about it making predictions. The observations of the property "waving" and "quantized", along with the fabric of space being "something" (brian green) makes it look like little pieces of the universe are strings waving.
Its a guess at this point. Yeah, a mathematical guess, but it doesn't make any predictions yet. QM and einstein makes all the predictions. QM is a probability wave function. "string".
you are correct in saying that its one that they are looking into. But many people just don't follow it because its not testable yet.
Multi-universe. poof there it is god is a flat unreasonable guess. "multiverse" is less unreasonable. multiverse does not preclude beliefs like the universe was made from other universes and this and those are alive. which, I know you get.
don't mix "faith" with incomplete science. it never ends well. we are observing the universe. That is empirical. incomplete science gives "blind faith" a footer. anthoro, or whatever it called, doesn't matter.
well, if we are here, is it more rational to say that
1) the universe has more of whatever trait we have or
2) is it more reasonable to say it has less than whatever traits we have?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
