Fine tuned universe

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But only for that person.

But that's what I mean. So... where is it, God? :looksaround:

I have no reason to believe anyone has actually had one.

It does seem suspicious to me that these "revelations" only happen in third-world, religious countries where acceptance and encouragement of such belief is prevalent. And America.

The gods change, but the habits don't.

[Coito ergo sum]

Hypothesis: Hypothesis: GOD caused the Big Bang to occur.

Exactly.

Hypothesis -- check.

Any evidence for that hypothesis being true? - No.

Not yet you mean.

That's what that always means. In the year 500 there was no evidence for an expanding universe.

That always means "not yet."

Reason to believe the hypothesis is true? None.

There's no less, and probably more reason to believe this universe was created by the inhabitants of some other universe than there is to believe that the Big Bang "just happened."

There is no less, since both are none.

There isn't more, since there is the same. Well, that is, unless you have some of which I am currently unaware, and I am always willing to hear out a person who claims such evidence exists. Have at it.

Ought one believe things about which there is no reason to believe? No.

Tell it to the theoretical cosmologists who came up with the membrane universe notion.

The don't "believe" it. They are theorizing it, as that term is used in theoretical physics. And, they do have, at least, a "reason" to theorize it, since the mathematics works. That's where they get membrane theory from. It's a mathematical theory in theoretical physics. It is deemed "good" because it has an internal consistency within certain specified assumptions.

Nobody except fucking idiots and scientific illiterates "believe" stuff like that to be "true." There is no evidence for membrane theory. There is no reason to "believe" it. However, it is a nice theory to inquire about because if the assumptions are true, then the math works.

Ergo, ought one believe in this "GOD" thingy of which you speak? It necessarily follows that "no" is the answer to that question.

It's as sensible as believing that there are membrane universes or that the Big Bang "just happened."

Sure. It's stupid to believe that the Big Bang "just happened," because the only answer that we have as to how the Big Bang happened is "I don't know." Even the math only goes back to about a Planck's constant unit of time AFTER the Big Bang. We don't know if it "just" happened, whatever you mean by that. And, nobody "believes" in membrane universes. It's, as I said, a mathematical construct that is valid under certain assumptions, meaning it has an internal consistency.

Even the physicists advancing the notion don't claim to know it to be true or to have been validated, or to have been supported by any evidence. But, then again, nobody has faith in it, either. They say "that's an interesting theory you have there -- the math works under those assumptions, and it has an internal consistency -- but, call us when you can prove it."

The gods theory(ies) is just a bit short of that, though. There aren't any mathematical theories in theoretical physics or anywhere else -- no formulas working with certain assumptions that have an internal consistency -- none of that. All we have with the gods theory(ies) is stuff people claim to be true without ANY basis -- not even a mathematical basis.

Might the hypothesis still be "true" despite there being no reason to believe in it? Yes. Just like any other statement, that much can be said. I can posit a hypothesis that this universe is the sixth attempt of a monster to create a cosmic plaything. Using the same thought process you use, Seth, we must keep an open mind for that and "look for evidence" of the monster in all experiments. However, using simple logic, we find that while the monster hypothesis is a hypothesis, there is no evidence for it - therefore there is no reason to believe the hypothesis is true, and we ought not, as a result, believe in the monster because we ought not believe in things about which there is no reason to believe.

Again, tell it to the theoretical cosmologists who don't think it's all that silly to believe in membrane or bubble universes, even though there is absolutely no evidence of their existence.

Objection. Lack of foundation. You do not have an example of a cosmologist that "believes" in membranes and bubble universes. They have theoretical physics - which is math - that works under certain assumptions and presents an internal consistency based on those assumptions. That's what they "believe." They can only say, though, that membrane theory works IF -- and only IF - the assumptions are true, and there isn't any proof for those assumptions, so we don't know.

Again - the god theory or theories doesn't have any sort of theoretical physics to it. Feel free to set forth the "God Equation" that shows that under X, Y, and Z, etc., assumptions, the math works out to demonstrating the existence of a god or gods. As far as I know, there isn't any.

Until then, though, you have an apples to oranges comparison between god-belief and M-theory. The former has nothing but assertions and mysticism behind it. The latter, while not based on any physical evidence, at least has "reason" behind it because the mathematics works (under the stated assumptions). And anyone who wants to can sit down and check the math. Nobody is asking you to just assume that a theoretical physicist has some sort of secret knowledge that is denied to you, or that you don't have access to.

Might there be a monster, anyway? Sure, but we still have no reason to believe it, and it is UNreasonable to believe in such things - by definition - axiomatically. If there is no reason to believe in X, then belief in X is unreasonable, gods and monsters included.

So, it was unreasonable to believe in muons and quarks eh? I see.

There is evidence of the existence of muons and quarks. For example, there has been evidence for quarks since at least 1968 when they did deep inelastic scattering experiments at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. All six flavors of quark have since been observed in accelerator experiments; the top quark, first observed at Fermilab in 1995, was the last to be discovered. All that evidence can be found at either your local library, or at a university library, and the experiments that discovered them have been verified and re-verified, and subjected to testing. And, the evidence was consistent with the mathematics.

Muons were discovered in 1937 in what is called the "cloud chamber experiment." New Evidence for the Existence of a Particle Intermediate Between the Proton and Electron", Phys. Rev. 52, 1003 (1937). In the Rossi–Hall experiment in 1941, muons were used to observe the time dilation (or alternately, length contraction) predicted by special relativity, for the first time. The experiment worked.

Science has a long history of speculation and theorizing about things unknown. Hypothesizing and speculating about the nature of things is the first step in the scientific process of finding ways to test those hypotheses.

Yes, but it's not done by making shit up. All the things you mention - M-theory, bubble universes, quarks and muons -- all of those things were calculated mathematically first, as part of theoretical physics. That's not the same thing as daydreaming, or wish-thinking, or just making something up like "There is a GOD" and then claiming that is the same thing as quark theory in the early to mid-20th century.

When you raise stuff like quarks and muons, you MAKE my point, Seth. That favors exactly what I'm saying. If you would read up on muons, quarks and M-Theory you'd see that the "hypotheses" bear absolutely no resemblance to the "gods hypotheses." Can you see the difference?

Whether or not there is evidence satisfactory to you about the existence of God, there are a good many people who claim to have had personal experiences with God, or a heareafter (like those who have had near-death experiences and have reported interesting and unexplained phenomena associated with the experience). You would discount their experiences because you cannot yourself experience what they did, or replicate it in a lab.

I don't "discount" it at all. It is what it is. It is a claim about a personal experience that is unverifiable. There are as many of those as there are people. Probably more. When one doesn't take their word for it, one isn't "discounting" anything. There is just nothing to be done with some person's claim that they saw angels in the hallway of a hospital. All that anyone can do is say,"O.k. - you say you saw them. Good for you." What ought we do with that? Believe it?

But that's the nature of interactions with another sentient creature capable of making conscious choices to act or not act. It may choose to act and give evidence to one person and not act and deny evidence to another person. Therefore, such experiences are not amenable to scientific falsification because they are one-off voluntary events not physical properties of the universe.

Right, that's why we ought not believe them. And, that is PRECISELY the thing that quark theory and muon theory and M-theory aren't. You've just described precisely why quark theory, muon theory, and M-theory are not the same thing as these "personal experiences" you want everyone to believe.

You cannot prove scientifically that I told my girlfriend that I love her before she just went to the store, but it happened nonetheless.

It's also not a scientific theory. We can prove scientifically that quarks and muons exist, and M-Theory is supported by theoretical physics (albeit without physical evidence). I don't believe that you told your girlfriend anything, or that you even have a girlfriend. The only thing I "believe" is that you've said so. But, it doesn't matter from a scientific standpoint, because it's not a scientific theory anyway. It's just your assertion which may or may not be true.

You cannot prove that God, or something like god, meddled with evolution of life on earth to guide it down specific pathways, but then again you cannot prove God did not do so.

Nobody can prove that God did not do so, or that it did do so, very true.

The key point is that there not only is no evidence for "God" (your constant capitalizing of that word, and you refusal to use any references to other gods, implies that you assume that there could only be one -- it has made me conclude that you are a believer in one of the versions of the Christian God) -- but not only is there no evidence for "God" but there isn't any theoretical physics/math for it either. It's made up from whole cloth.

But that does not mean that it did not, or could not have happened.

Here you do your usual "pushing at an open door." Nobody says that it's been proven that it did not or could not happen. You just got through reading my post, for example, where I specifically stated -- outright - explicitly - and I gave it a full paragraph for emphasis, that the fact that there is no evidence or reason to believe it does NOT mean that it did not happen. You started arguing the point that isn't at issue. You do that a lot. It's one of your techniques.

No scientists or physicists claim that it's been proven that God does not exist or could not exist. Almost no atheist has concluded that either. However, to say that it hasn't been disproven is meaningless, because a bazillion things haven't been disproven, and as far as "could not exist," well, almost anything "could" exist, especially when you start with the assumption that it isn't constrained by physics or any universal laws. Of course -- there could be a billion gods, and maybe they're all hot bikini models with penchants for vigorous and enthusiastic fellatio. I don't know. Maybe. Could be. It's not been proven wrong.

[Animavore]

I'd love to script a road movie about you guys.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'd love to script a road movie about you guys.

The Colossus of Roads?

[Animavore]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It might be in violation of the statues.

[MrFungus420]

Hypothesis: Hypothesis: GOD caused the Big Bang to occur.

Exactly.

Hypothesis -- check.

Any evidence for that hypothesis being true? - No.

Not yet you mean.

No, he means no evidence.

Even if you end up being true and there is not yet any evidence, that still means that there currently is NO evidence.

[Seth]

Well when god decides to let me in on his little club I will believe. Until then it's in the box marked 'pending evidence' with every other unsupported claim anyone has ever dreamt up.

Which is fine, but still the possibility remains so you can't say God does not exist. "Pending evidence" is a perfectly rational position to take however.

[Seth]

Thousands of years, no evidence. But that was pre-Seth, of course.

No evidence that YOU find satisfactory, which means absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things.

[surreptitious57]

Thousands of years no evidence But that was pre Seth of course

No evidence that YOU find satisfactory which means absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things

Actually no you are wrong there Seth for he means no evidence as in none and it has nothing
to do with subjective interpretation here : there is simply none and by evidence one means
that that can be subject to the rigours of the Scientific Method which takes all and every
claim and tests them to absolute destruction : God may very well exist : fact is that no
one knows but even so there is no proof that He does though given how He wants our
unconditional love find that rather paradoxical : as His not revealing Himself allows
some to not believe in Him : by the way an atheist is not some one who does not
believe in God rather someone who believes there is no evidence for God : I do
not believe in Him for that very reason and I shall continue to do so unless He
can reveal Himself in a manner that confirms it beyond all reasonable doubt
I take the view that when It comes to referencing reality one s world view
should be reality itself and not a subjective interpretation of it since the
problem then arises of which reality to believe should the two prove to
be significantly different to each other and which is why always seek
to maintain an open mind on anything that I am not truly certain of

[Seth]

Thousands of years no evidence But that was pre Seth of course

No evidence that YOU find satisfactory which means absolutely nothing in the greater scheme of things

Actually no you are wrong there Seth for he means no evidence as in none and it has nothing
to do with subjective interpretation here : there is simply none and by evidence one means
that that can be subject to the rigours of the Scientific Method which takes all and every
claim and tests them to absolute destruction :

As I said, no evidence that YOU find satisfactory. Resorting to "the Scientific Method" as the absolute and ultimate arbiter of what constitutes "evidence" is just a way of dismissing evidence you don't find compelling. As I've noted before, the voluntary interactions of an intelligence that does not wish to leave "scientific" evidence behind with humans on this planet would not be subject to the "Scientific Method" any more than my farting in bed last week would be subject to detection, analysis and quantification using the scientific method today. And yet I farted in bed last week. That you cannot prove it or find evidence that can be "subject to the rigours of the Scientific Method" does not mean it didn't happen, just as my thinking about Natalie Portman in the nude cannot be subjected to those rigors either, and yet I so thought just now.

[surreptitious57]

By your logic then one should believe in something even where its impossible to validate it
Now the Scientific Method may have its limitations but currently remains by far best way
to ascertain whether something is true or not : so stop assuming that I do not believe
in God since I choose to ignore the evidence : what is this mysterious evidence you
keep alluding to : if it exists then please present it : if it does not then why your
constant reference of it : you appear to be displaying an open mind on whether
God exists or not which is exactly the same position that I maintain as have
already stated so your criticisms are invalid : for I am not saying that God
does not exist : what I am saying is that there is no evidence of this so
that still allows for the possibility of it : so understand the distinction

[Seth]

By your logic then one should believe in something even where its impossible to validate it

No, I just say that just because YOU cannot validate it, or that just because science cannot validate it TODAY does not make it inexorably impossible to validate "it" somehow or some time.

Newton could not validate the existence of quarks, and we cannot yet validate the existence of the "God particle" that's been theorized. Validation is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. Life goes on and the world keeps right on turning on its axis even though there are unvalidated things in the universe. God may be one of those unvalidated things that awaits the technology, intelligence, or capacity to detect, quantify and explain, just like quarks and electrons spun happily along in spite of Newton's inability to validate them.

Now the Scientific Method may have its limitations but currently remains by far best way
to ascertain whether something is true or not

Is it true that Charlize Theron is beautiful? Can science "ascertain" the truth of that statement? Do I love my girlfriend? Can science "acertain" the truth of that statement? Nope.

The "Scientific Method" most certainly does have its limitations, one of which is that absent the ability of scientists to examine a phenomenon and subject it to testing, phenomena keep right on happening without the benefit of the "Scientific Method" or scientists. One of those phenomena is that I thought of a pink elephant a moment ago, and concluded that pink elephants would be a remarkable artistic addition to the panoply of creatures. Subject that to the "Scientific Method" and ascertain if it's "true" or not.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet, Act I, Scene V

: so stop assuming that I do not believe
in God since I choose to ignore the evidence : what is this mysterious evidence you
keep alluding to : if it exists then please present it : if it does not then why your
constant reference of it :

I have presented one item of evidence: the events at Fatima. Now it is your turn to apply the "Scientific Method" to demonstrate that God could not and did not author those phenomena. Have at it.

you appear to be displaying an open mind on whether
God exists or not which is exactly the same position that I maintain as have
already stated so your criticisms are invalid : now am not saying that God
does not exist : what I am saying is that there is no evidence of this so
that still allows for the possibility of it : so understand the distinction

Again, there is no evidence that YOU find compelling, not an absolute absence of any evidence. The Vatican files are filled with close examinations of "miracles" attributed to God which remain unexplained by the "Scientific Method." If you were open to the evidence, you would do your own homework and examine those phenomena yourself.

Other people, including some of the finest intellects in the history of the world, have come to the opposite conclusion about both the existence of evidence of God's existence and the evidence of God's "miracles" here on earth.

Which is to say that your skepticism is not determinative of the truth, which you seem to acknowledge. What you seem to be avoiding at all costs is an examination of the evidence that does exist that contradicts what you believe to be the "Scientific Method." But as I said, the "Scientific Method" is not the determiner of the truth of phenomena, and the fact that science cannot or has not ascertained the truth of the claim that God exists has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the truth, or falsity of God's existence. God, being God, may be deliberately evading scientific examination and analysis by remaining concealed and not revealing himself to but a select few directly. If I say I met God, the "Scientific Method" cannot possibly examine that claim for truth because there is nothing for science to examine. The event occurred and is passed. It was a one-time event and the product of sentient action and no scientific equipment was present to record the event and therefore science can neither confirm nor deny that the event occurred as I stated it did, any more than science can either confirm or deny that I think Charlize Theron is beautiful and that Andrea Dworking is a repulsive troll.

So no, the "Scientific Method" is not in fact "best way to ascertain whether something is true or not," not by a long shot. It's a good way to try to ascertain if some physical property of the universe is as predicted, and it's a pretty good way to explain most natural phenomena that are amenable to scientific analysis, but it's abysmally poor at doing many things, including determining "truth" about things it's not able to detect, inspect and quantify.

Now, someday it may be possible for science to detect, inspect and quantify God, but in the meantime, God will keep right on existing...or not existing...without the "Scientific Method" and will remain either true or not true sans science.

[Clinton Huxley]

14 pages of verbiage to say we can't prove God doesn't exist, which everyone agrees with anyway?
Nice.

[surreptitious57]

I did state the fact that the Scientific Method has its limitations so your referencing of this just
confirms my point : disagree how ever that is not the best for determining truth so name one
other discipline that takes a proposition and tests it to its absolute limit by those that have
no bias other than to establish what is objectively true : now this in stark contrast to your
example of the Vatican that have a vested interest in the out come of any phenomena
being proved right and so a poor example you have provided as with Fatima : now if
scientific establishment found it to be true then would have absolutely no problem
accepting it as far better to entrust it to them than the religious one for reasons
already mentioned : now presumably you would prefer their subjective analysis
to the objective one of the scientific community which I would disagree with

Your whole modus operandi here Seth is to discourage anyone from not
believing in anything less they can disprove it : but do not make the
error here of assuming that everything must have an equal chance
of being or not being true : for the balance of probability is not
always at a nice neat fifty per cent : indeed it could be as low
as one or as high as ninety nine so please bear that in mind