whereas your bias denies the possibility of a finite universe. luckily, science keeps all options open in the lack of evidence
exactly. "which could be anything"
oh, crikey. we don't "say" energy is the first cause, because like you accurately stated a second ago, it could be anything. we keep all viable options on the table until evidence is forthcoming. that's science
not to beat a dead horse, but everytime you say "proves" or something like "Technically, the singularity always existed" you make me cringe. they're untestable hypotheses. and shaky at that since the laws of physics break down in the time approaching the big bang
you're making the same mistake but in reverse -- making the tacit assumption that there cannot be a finite string of causes
actually my point is that it's what you are doing with your simplistic criterion of lack of evidence, and untestability. and no, i'm not a Ph.D in string theory, but i don't really have to be since my basic understanding of it was more than enough to point out your rather-obvious gaff at misunderstanding the inclusivity of the scientific method
it's a theory who's very basis, the strings, is untestable, but one that explains other scientific problems. exactly the same as the first cause theories, including a deity
First of all, dark matter DOES give off evidence, which is why scientists tend to believe it exists. There are certain unexplained gravitational effects, and the theory of dark matter seems to account for this.[/quote]you should probably read my whole post before you respond since i go on to explain this is exactly my point
as i stated, it's relevant because despite no direct evidence, it's existence helps explain other scientific problems, eg the gravitational effects on nearby systems
This has nothing to do with what I said. Science does make claims. One such claim is that man evolved from apes.[/quote]that must be why it's called the Claim of Evolution.
you can have multiple theories for the same problem. stating science "claims" something instead of theorizing it ignores this fact
If the theory has explanatory power and accounts for phenomenon while making falsifiable predictions, then the theory certainly isn't believed without "evidence".[/quote]and viable theories also aren't rejected without evidence
God has explanatory power as first cause. and again, the string of string theory also isn't testable
we seem to be going nowhere here since every glaring problem with your rule-it-out-a priori argument that you encounter you claim has nothing to do with your argument. or you tell me to get a Ph.D before i make the point again
not gonna work :)
i always considered that a fallacious argument since who's to say intelligent design didn't use evolution as it's designing tool. i think the dichotomy is a vestige of the christian's assault on the Claim... err.... Theory of Evolution, but it's a poor division by people who still use it
you've failed to make your case. they directly apply to your "lack of evidence" and "testability" claims. but since you have no rejoinder to that, try tackling this:
what makes an untestable theory such as the multidimensional pendulum big bang-big crunch theory anymore valid a thoery than a multidimensional deity theory. neither are testable and the only explanation either of them offer is the creation of the universe.
have at it
you need to stop attacking me personally and start addressing my points. it would be easy for me to attack you personally, since your not understanding of the inclusivity of the scientific method makes me think you have about a 4th grade understanding of it, but instead i'm trying to address your points instead of characterizing you, the person making those points. it's getting difficult however when you seem unwilling or unable to do the same
again, it's not "accept", it's not "prove", it's not "claim". it's theories and probabilities. for the record, i'm an atheist, i'm just bright enough to see past my own bias when donning the neutral mentality of the scientific method
you obviously make another poor assumption. first because like i said, i don't believe in god, so why would i be supporting evidence to believe? second the very term "believe" shows you still don't understand the probabilistic nature of the scientific method in general and postulating hypotheses in particular
teh haw. "complete crap" and "your god". you're outing yourself as emotionally biased more and more with each utterance
and again, though i doubt it hasn't sunk in it, the predictive power in the deity hypothesis is that it explains first cause and states where the universe came from. the latter is particularly important because of the fact everything in our universe comes from something. (energy cannot be created or destroyed, conservation of mass, etc) to suddenly ignore this fact when we come to the beginning of the universe is unscientific.
Again, the fact that we can't "see" them or DIRECTLY observe them doesn't mean they are believed in WITHOUT EVIDENCE. We can't directly observe evolution, either. But that doesn't mean all the things it predicted isn't evidence.[/quote]the only piece of evidence for their existence is that they formed a grand unified theory. they explained something that couldn't be explained, and despite its untestability, most scientists accept that it's a valid theory because of this explanation
argh. i'm hoping you realizing i'm an atheist will make you more likely to put aside emotional responses next post. maybe even get you past the "this has nothing to do with my argument" and "get a Ph.D in string theory before you make that point" style of debate
give me a prediction or a test to the other theories of first cause
You must not have understood my post then. Nonexistence CANNOT be proven with evidence.[/quote]if this is the basis of your entire argument, then you're on shaky ground indeed. because nonexistence CAN be proven with evidence. it's proven with evidence for a competing theory
or do you still believe in Plato's spheres and the ether?
---
what if nigger meant kite
