Koran burning in reaction to 9/11

[Castiel]

Not entirely true tbh, mavity can be explained by the natural force of exertion evident in celestial objects. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity has an overwhelming amount of observable evidence. String Theory goes on to state why large objects demonstrate gravitation, but that starts going really deep and into parallel universes.

It has yet to explain how particles have mass. I was simply making a point, you cannot dismiss God from a mechanism when we cannot explain that mechanism fully.

 

[mrk]

Originally Posted by bhavv View Post
Both science and atheists can dismiss God entirely as the idea of God defines it as existing outside of the physical and atomic realm, both of which we know are Physically impossible.

Known physics only applies to our observable Universe.

Right now think tanks are coming round to the notion that as you stray away from the known universe and look at other parts Physics we have now no longer apply, that they are different throughout the entire Universe instead of being constant although we know this already by observing what happens to light and spacetime near a singularity (black hole).

Einstein hinted at this IIRC and others after him have considered that completely new Physics would have to be brought about because of this.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100909004112.htm

 

[bhavv]

It has yet to explain how particles have mass. I was simply making a point, you cannot dismiss God from a mechanism when we cannot explain that mechanism fully.

You cannot explain or prove that the powerpuff girls arent real either, so to say so would be unscientific.

The powerpuff girls must be real because they saw how evil Islam was and went and created floods in Pakistan using their super powers.

Known physics only applies to our observable Universe.

Right now think tanks are coming round to the notion that as you stray away from the known universe and look at other parts Physics we have now no longer apply

I cant agree with that think tank. If something doesnt have an atomic structure, or is not energy, then it really cant exist. That article also doesnt say anything about things existing without the atomic structure and energy.

If anything can exist in other ways, then it needs to be proven with solid evidence first to make me believe it, that is an Atheist stance on just about any unknown theory, and I am certain the scientific stance too.

 

[Vonhelmet]

That doesn't matter though, goes it? If you're going to be agnostic about the existence of god, then you should be agnostic about everything. You are agnostic, then, as to whether or not a teapot is orbiting the moon.

Indeed. And that's a fair position too. However, given the vast amount of observation of a testable hypothesis (namely - if there is a teapot, we should be able to see it) it can be said to be incredibly improbable that such a teapot exists.

It's not quite the same with God, who could exist entirely outside the universe as we know it and be entirely undetectable in this universe, or could exist here in a manner entirely undetectable to science.

 

[Castiel]

Science has a testable theory for mavity. It isn't bulletproof, but a damn sight more than "it is divine"

Indeed, but the point was valid, we cannot fully explain the mechanism of mavity, thus we cannot dismiss God from it.

That doesn't matter though, goes it? If you're going to be agnostic about the existence of god, then you should be agnostic about everything. You are agnostic, then, as to whether or not a teapot is orbiting the moon.

Religions are based on Faith, not Science, thus the philosophical demands are different. If a religion states this proves God based on it's faith, then it is up to Atheism to prove otherwise using Science or it's own faith based arguement. As science has yet to do either, Atheism is a faith based arguement much like Religion.

The only scientific answer is, We don't know. Agnosticism.

 

[Nanoman]

It has yet to explain how particles have mass. I was simply making a point, you cannot dismiss God from a mechanism when we cannot explain that mechanism fully.

mavity can't explain why particles don't have mass? The Higgs Boson hasn't been found but it's the only part of the Standard Model missing, which is highly tested and is actually QM btw.

 

[bhavv]

Indeed. And that's a fair position too. However, given the vast amount of observation of a testable hypothesis (namely - if there is a teapot, we should be able to see it) it can be said to be incredibly improbable that such a teapot exists.

It might be an invisible teapot.

Religions are based on Faith, not Science, thus the philosophical demands are different. If a religion states this proves God based on it's faith, then it is up to Atheism to prove otherwise using Science or it's own faith based arguement. As science has yet to do either, Atheism is a faith based arguement much like Religion.

Science easily proves that prayer doesnt work, yet religious people will still pray.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

It's not quite the same with God, who could exist entirely outside the universe as we know it and be entirely undetectable in this universe, or could exist here in a manner entirely undetectable to science.

And the same with my teapot, maybe

 

[Castiel]

mavity can't explain why particles don't have mass? The Higgs Boson hasn't been found but it's the only part of the Standard Model missing, which is highly tested and is actually QM btw.

Exactly, my point. Hence the term 'God Particle'

Let's not ignore that it is a theory, There are others to explain mavity, including but not limited to Entropy, TeVeS. Also there are the anomolies that current theories cannot explain such as Dark Matter/Energy, Pioneer anomaly and so on.

Its too late to get into detail on W and Z bosons and Nuclear Force et al, so I'll concede it was a poor example that requires too much detail to get the point across easily.

 

[Metatron]

Klingon teapot.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Indeed, but the point was valid, we cannot fully explain the mechanism of mavity, thus we cannot dismiss God from it.

We also cannot dismiss cheese from the mechanics of mavity, either. God and cheese have an equal place in the mechanics of mavity.

 

[bhavv]

Indeed, but the point was valid, we cannot fully explain the mechanism of mavity, thus we cannot dismiss God from it.

OR the powerpuff girls. I think its bubbles that causes mavity.

 

[Pate]

The Koran burning has been cancelled, btw

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-11255366

What a shame.

Personally I was looking forward to this going ahead so the world could get a proper glimpse at islam's intolerance.

 

[Nanoman]

Exactly, my point. Hence the term 'God Particle'

Yea but stating that mavity isn't fully understood because the God Particle hasn't been found doesn't really make sense as General Relativity doesn't conform to sub-atomic physics.

 

[Alex_6n2]

Indeed, but the point was valid, we cannot fully explain the mechanism of mavity, thus we cannot dismiss God from it.

But with the same argument you cannot use it as a proof for the divine either. Which is what you appear to be doing.

Just because we are yet to discover the physics of something, does not mean we never will. Anyone that jumps on the first unfinished scientific theory and proclaims the unexplained is due to God is an idiot.

Religious people should stop arguing over stupid beliefs and help humanity work towards the discovery of the unknown, rather than forcing some out dated, unbalance argument on others.

 

[DAnDan]

The way I see it, god (deity style) is a theory, a theory with zero evidence. Yes, we have not disproved the theory (yet anyway), but a theory with no evidence doesn't hold that strong in my book.

 

[bhavv]

What a shame.

Personally I was looking forward to this going ahead so the world could get a proper glimpse at islam's intolerance.

Yay. I am not the only evil blasphemer here

 

[Castiel]

Yea but stating that mavity isn't fully understood because the God Particle hasn't been found doesn't really make sense as General Relativity doesn't conform to sub-atomic physics.

Quantum mavity doesn't conform to General Relativity either.

The mechanism of mavity isn't fully understood.

 

[Castiel]

But with the same argument you cannot use it as a proof for the divine either. Which is what you appear to be doing.

Just because we are yet to discover the physics of something, does not mean we never will. Anyone that jumps on the first unfinished scientific theory and proclaims the unexplained is due to God is an idiot.

Religious people should stop arguing over stupid beliefs and help humanity work towards the discovery of the unknown, rather than forcing some out dated, unbalance argument on others.

I'm not, I saying that science currently supports an agnostic, we dont know position and not the atheist there is no God position.

I'm not supporting a Deist theory at all.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

I'm not, I saying that science currently supports an agnostic, we dont know position and not the atheist there is no God position.

I'm not supporting a Deist theory at all.

No, science does not support the agnostic position. If something cannot be proven, it is false.

Science does not support the agnostic position on my theory that mavity is actually the product of our making cheese, but in a way we're physically unable to observe in our world, so why would it support the agnostic position on God?

In science, it isn't "maybe true until shown to be true or false", it is "false until proven otherwise".