Response to EminemBase (on Science)

[classthe_king]

I've never once implied that god was real or likely or tried to make that argument

All I said was that you cannot say a god doesn't exist. Which you again admitted that you can't. And gtfo with scientists say it's impossible. Stephen Hawking admitted it's not impossible.

[GenePeer]

Insult me and keep bringing up non-scientific-terms such as defying gravity in a topic on science all you like, I now officially know you're a sore loser!

[GenePeer]

Since you seem to love quotes by famous scientists, here's one I just stumbled on from the book A Brief History of Time

Any physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand, you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.

So how can it be a fact if there's a chance the next result will contradict it? No matter how many times it passes! For someone who claims to live by logic, it's quite hypocritical of you to call theories, which haven't (and can never) been proven, facts. That's exactly what I've been saying from page 1 of this thread, and I'm just curious if you're now going to say he's wrong too?

Not only did I prove theories aren't fact in the post you refused to respond to but I just showed you Stephen Hawking thinks likewise! What more could you possibly ask for?

[WakeUpShow]

honestly, arguments like this should not be taking place. Since there is no factual evidence it always ends with both sides repeating their thesis followed by "you're wrong". However I think class explained his point in a clearer and more precise fashion

[GenePeer]

But what point is it to then say, science cannot be wrong so God doesn't exist if science can in fact be wrong? If the backbone of your argument is the infallibility of science, then you are misrepresenting science. That's why I created this thread!

More on the incompleteness theorem on the other thread!

[GenePeer]

This is what they're trying to convince me with their argument that I won't be willing to try any of those dangerous things:

It's a waste of time to say playing russian roulette with 5 bullets in 6 chambers doesn't guarantee death if you're not willing to play the game itself.

It could just be that the chamber about to be triggered is the one with no bullet in it (or [whatever risky shit you've challenged me to do] is the next result that proves science wrong), but am I willing to risk my life? Fuck no!
Does this mean playing that type of russian roulette will guarantee death (or science is a fact)? Fuck no!
Does this mean EminemBase was right in saying, "It's a fact that science is right, therefore..."? Fuck no!
It only means I'm not gambler, but EminemBase still has no right to claim that it's a fact science is right.

[mcZu]

GenePeer, please stop ending your sentences with an exclamation mark, I know it might seem to you as if you're strengthening your point by doing so, but, to the outside eye it just seems foolish.

That said, do you guys even realize that some laws are subject to environment? Gravity for example? The fact that we know little, to none, about solar systems outside of our own?

To claim that everything out there should be subject to the scientific laws we observe on our end of the universe is foolish and ignorant.

The argument that God should be subject to these laws is far from sound. Based on the simple fact that we don't know where such a God resides. As far as we know the scientific laws, we perceive as a fact, have no impact at all or a different impact on the environments out side of our very own solar system.

[GenePeer]

I know it's foolish to get riled up over an internet debate, but I can't control my emotions. The exclamation marks are my sign of frustration, surprise, and any other intense feeling I'm having at the time of writing the post.

[Alex2012]

Do I have to say thanks to the science for to have finding a cure against migraine, or to God [I'm rather pagan, it's just because it is a universal reference], since it is nature that gives us the components to make painkillers.


I think I'll take a pill and go to bed.

[DanWS]

That said, do you guys even realize that some laws are subject to environment? Gravity for example? The fact that we know little, to none, about solar systems outside of our own?

To claim that everything out there should be subject to the scientific laws we observe on our end of the universe is foolish and ignorant.

The argument that God should be subject to these laws is far from sound. Based on the simple fact that we don't know where such a God resides. As far as we know the scientific laws, we perceive as a fact, have no impact at all or a different impact on the environments out side of our very own solar system.

Good point.

[GoodGirlsGetGutted]

Oh my lord. Still? Debating about religion is pointless, simply because I have never actually seen anyone "convert" after losing. Nothing changes.

[GenePeer]

Well, when I made the thread I tried to keep religion out of it for that exact reason. It's other people who keep bringing it up.

[WakeUpShow]

Did anyone watch "Curiosity" with Stephen Hawking tonight? it was a special about whether God created the Earth or not. He said no because there was no time before the universe. I call bullshit. If there was time for the then molecule-sized universe, there was time for a God.

[classthe_king]

Did anyone watch "Curiosity" with Stephen Hawking tonight? it was a special about whether God created the Earth or not. He said no because there was no time before the universe. I call bullshit. If there was time for the then molecule-sized universe, there was time for a God.

That's not what he said at all.

[WakeUpShow]

Did anyone watch "Curiosity" with Stephen Hawking tonight? it was a special about whether God created the Earth or not. He said no because there was no time before the universe. I call bullshit. If there was time for the then molecule-sized universe, there was time for a God.

That's not what he said at all.

yes, in a nut shell it is. He said time didn't start until the big bang, because the mass of the molecule sized universe created basically an enormous black hole, which time freezes inside of. So I say, if there was no time for a God to exist, why was there time for the molecule which we now call the universe.