Australian Politics Forum - You can't use Science to prove or disprove God

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #135 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 8:49am

Ajax wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 8:42am:

Therefore when I say that the big bang theory is based on faith just like the God theory I don’t think I’m exaggerating or lying.

You gents act as though we have solved all the riddles of the universe in your desperate attempt to prove that there is no God you accept everything the scientists tell you verbatim, well when it comes to the cosmos I think we are just getting started.

I don't think you're exaggerating or lying, you're just not correct.

Scientists don't think we've solved all the riddles, thats why we do science.

Bible thumpers if anything think that we've solved all the riddles. Its god, stupid.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20977
A cat with a view

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #136 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:20am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 11:04am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 11:01am:

Yes you cunderstand what a scientific theory is. Collect the evidence, then make a model to explain the observation.

Its not a wild ass guess. And again just because you don't understand it, doesnt mean it didnt happen.

Google argument from incredulity.

Like I said the big bang theory is like the God theory its based on faith.

Absolutely smacking crap.

Faith requires no evidence.

Science is based on the collection of evidence.

Yadda said....
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1304543494/253#253
Quote:

Yadda explains the [accepted by scientists] BIG BANG theory;

THIS IS WHAT IS TAUGHT TO CHILDREN IN SCHOOLS;

All matter was once compressed into the size of a full-stop-dot, like the one at the end of this sentence >>> . <<<

And then there was an explosion of that matter [i.e. the BIG BANG], which resulted in our present universe of stars and planets.

The material from that explosion [of nothing] then coalesced and was drawn together to form the stars and planets in our universe.

On earth, the molten rocks cooled, life evolved [from what was once those molten rocks!], and here we all are, ...the masters of the universe!
LOL

Here is a nice BIG BANG theory quote from a science article [purporting to be fact] published in that reputable 'science' magazine, 'Discover';

Google it;

"...The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing - zero, nada. And as it got bigger, it became filled with even more stuff that came from absolutely nowhere."

Alan Guth, Discover magazine April 2002

Quote:

......Start, Guth says, by imagining nothing, a pure vacuum. Be careful. Don't imagine outer space without matter in it. Imagine no space at all and no matter at all. Good luck.

To the average person it might seem obvious that nothing can happen in nothing. But to a quantum physicist, nothing is, in fact, something.

Quantum theory holds that probability, not absolutes, rules any physical system.

It is impossible, even in principle, to predict the behavior of any single atom; all physicists can do is predict the average properties of a large collection of atoms. Quantum theory also holds that a vacuum, like atoms, is subject to quantum uncertainties.

This means that things can materialize out of the vacuum,

although they tend to vanish back into it quickly. While this phenomenon has never been observed directly, measurements of the electron's magnetic strength strongly imply that it is real and happening in the vacuum of space even now.

Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk,

which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.

http://discovermagazine.com/2002/apr/cover#.UNA9tCyDFpg

Its a 'magic' show folks! Grin

Quote:

"Faith requires no evidence.

Science is based on the collection of evidence."

- a direct quote, of a scientifically 'informed' individual, known here on OzPol as Pastafarian / Bojack Horseman.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 26906 Canberra Gender:	Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God Reply #137 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:25am Discover magazine is about as good as wiki. Its for a general audience, the science is poorly detailed.
Back to top	In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act. No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy) IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #138 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:28am

Theoretically, anything—a dog, a house, a planet—can pop into existence by means of this quantum quirk,

which physicists call a vacuum fluctuation. Probability, however, dictates that pairs of subatomic particles—one positive, one negative, so that conservation laws are not violated—are by far the most likely creations and that they will last extremely briefly, typically for only 10-21 second. The spontaneous, persistent creation of something even as large as a molecule is profoundly unlikely.

Read the rest of what you posted. Theoretically a dog could be created, but the most likely scenario is subatomic particles.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20977
A cat with a view

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #139 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:38am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:25am:

Discover magazine is about as good as wiki. Its for a general audience, the science is poorly detailed.

Ah, .....i see, .....so the people who speculate in its [Discover magazine's] pages are not real scientists then. ???

Not like, other, real scientists, who have postulated the big bang theory, into the explanation of how 'life, the universe and everything', came into existence.

Dictionary;
postulate = = suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

.

'Modern Science.'

I have heard many of the arguments.

But it still sounds like faith based belief system to me. !!!!! Cheesy

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #140 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:42am

Yadda wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:25am:

Discover magazine is about as good as wiki. Its for a general audience, the science is poorly detailed.

Ah, .....i see, .....so the people who speculate in its [Discover magazine's] pages are not real scientists then. ???

Not like, other, real scientists, who have postulated the big bang theory, into the explanation of how 'life, the universe and everything', came into existence.

Dictionary;
postulate = = suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

.

'Modern Science.'

I have heard many of the arguments.

But it still sounds like faith based belief system to me. !!!!! Cheesy

Thats because you're an illiterate half wit. We have plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 20977
A cat with a view

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #141 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:52am

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:42am:

Yadda wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:25am:

Discover magazine is about as good as wiki. Its for a general audience, the science is poorly detailed.

Ah, .....i see, .....so the people who speculate in its [Discover magazine's] pages are not real scientists then. ???

Not like, other, real scientists, who have postulated the big bang theory, into the explanation of how 'life, the universe and everything', came into existence.

Dictionary;
postulate = = suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

.

'Modern Science.'

I have heard many of the arguments.

But it still sounds like faith based belief system to me. !!!!! Cheesy

Thats because

you're an illiterate half wit.

We have plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

Pastafarian,

I concede, i concede !!!!!

I am completely convinced, .........by your scientifically based, and well reasoned arguments.

How could i ever have doubted your prestigious opinion your prestigious, scientifically based, and well reasoned arguments, on this matter!

/sarc off

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Prime Minister for Canyons

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26906
Canberra
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #142 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:57am

Yadda wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:52am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:42am:

Yadda wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:38am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:25am:

Discover magazine is about as good as wiki. Its for a general audience, the science is poorly detailed.

Ah, .....i see, .....so the people who speculate in its [Discover magazine's] pages are not real scientists then. ???

Not like, other, real scientists, who have postulated the big bang theory, into the explanation of how 'life, the universe and everything', came into existence.

Dictionary;
postulate = = suggest or assume the existence, fact, or truth of (something) as a basis for reasoning, discussion, or belief.

.

'Modern Science.'

I have heard many of the arguments.

But it still sounds like faith based belief system to me. !!!!! Cheesy

Thats because

you're an illiterate half wit.

We have plenty of evidence for the Big Bang.

Pastafarian,

I concede, i concede !!!!!

I am completely convinced, .........by your scientifically based, and well reasoned arguments.

How could i ever have doubted your prestigious opinion your prestigious, scientifically based, and well reasoned arguments, on this matter!

/sarc off

Would you then care to debate how the following isn't evidence for the Big Bang

Red shift
CMBR
Abundance of primordial elements
Stellar evolution

If you aren't convinced why don't these convince you?

Back to top

In a time of universal deceit — telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

No evidence whatsoever it can be attributed to George Orwell or Eric Arthur Blair (in fact the same guy)

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10958
Australia
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #143 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 4:40pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Would you then care to debate how the following isn't evidence for the Big Bang

Red shift

This doesn't prove the big bang theory, its an observation that galaxies are moving further apart.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

CMBR

This one is a tall tale, with all the dust and clouds of gases the galaxies themselves and all the other elements in the universe this would be almost impossible to do.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Abundance of primordial elements
Stellar evolution

How do these this prove the big bang theory.....???

Our ignorance shows up here.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 5^th, 2016 at 4:45pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #144 - Feb 5^th, 2016 at 7:41pm

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 10:27am:

Ajax wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 10:17am:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 4^th, 2016 at 8:21am:

I never said you cant prove or disprove God. The evidence shows a big bang occurred and that evolution has occurred on this planet. Now as far as I am concerned that has nothing to do with the existence of God. All this disproves is the Bibles version of events.

I'm prepared to admit that there is a possibility that God started the big bang.

Where is the evidence that a big bang occurred, its a theory that has come about because everything in the universe is said to be drifting further apart, and the only way the human mind can make any sense of it would be that it was caused by an explosion.

What was before the bang...............???

Where did this miniscule piece of matter come from.....???

How did this miniscule piece of matter come into existence.......?????

Why did it explode.........?????

Like I said a theory that can never be proven.

Evidence for big bang.

Red shift, CMBR, Abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, primordial gas clouds.

This only puts the questions back one step further: What created Red shift, CMBR, Abundance of primordial elements, galactic evolution and distribution, primordial gas clouds?

Back to top

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2178
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #145 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:46am

Ajax wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 4:40pm:

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Would you then care to debate how the following isn't evidence for the Big Bang

Red shift

This doesn't prove the big bang theory, its an observation that galaxies are moving further apart.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

CMBR

This one is a tall tale, with all the dust and clouds of gases the galaxies themselves and all the other elements in the universe this would be almost impossible to do.

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Feb 5^th, 2016 at 9:57am:

Abundance of primordial elements
Stellar evolution

How do these this prove the big bang theory.....???

Our ignorance shows up here.

It's great when you have a conversation when people really know what they're talking about. I'll leave this deep cosmology conversation well alone.

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10958
Australia
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #146 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 9:38am

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

It's great when you have a conversation when people really know what they're talking about. I'll leave this deep cosmology conversation well alone.

Sorry professor I didn't realize you where so high up on the ladder.

You better come down a few rungs otherwise since we can see up your skirt we might start making jokes about you.... Tongue

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

John_Taverner

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2178
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #147 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 4:10pm

For a start, don't talk about proof and science in the same line. Science doesn't have such a thing as proof.

You can talk about the weight of evidence, but that's about it.

That will do for a start.

As far as the Big Bang is concerned, the main evidence in its favour is the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR if you prefer).

However, it is just the current theory. Theories come and go. There is String theory, complete with Strings, Branes and D Branes. Pertubation Theory, Non-perturbative results, S-duality, T-duality, M-theory, AdS/CFT correspondence etc.

The latest theory maintains that the universe is a 3 dimensional hologram of a 2 dimensional universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

So what is the definitive theory?

Lord Knows.

(....but it certainly doesn't come from a selection of Bronze Age/ Dark Age books written by people with chronic halitosis and no knowledge of modern hygiene.)

Our observational repartoire has advanced since then.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 6^th, 2016 at 4:37pm by John_Taverner »

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10958
Australia
Gender: male

Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God
Reply #148 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 4:33pm

John_Taverner wrote on Feb 6^th, 2016 at 4:10pm:

For a start, don't talk about proof and science in the same line. Science doesn't have such a thing as proof.

You can talk about the weight of evidence, but that's about it.

That will do for a start.

As far as the Big Bang is concerned, the main evidence in its favour is the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMBR if you prefer).

However, it is just the current theory. Theories come and go. There is String theory, complete with Strings, Branes and D Branes. Pertubation Theory, Non-perturbative results, S-duality, T-duality, M-theory, AdS/CFT correspondence etc.

The latest theory maintains that the universe is a 3 dimensional hologram of a 2 dimensional universe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holographic_principle

So what is the definitive theory?

Lord Knows.

(....but it certainly doesn't come from a selection of Bronze Age/ Dark Age books written by people with chronic halitosis and no knowledge of modern hygiene.)

Our observational repartoire has advanced since then.

Are you having a go at me professor....???

Well I just want to inform you that even though the ancient Greeks and Romans didn't have tooth brushes they did have powders that they cleaned their teeth with after a meal.

http://www.greekmedicine.net/hygiene/Greek_Oral_Hygiene.html

So much for the bad breath....LOL.... Kiss

Back to top

« Last Edit: Feb 6^th, 2016 at 4:47pm by Ajax »

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

John_Taverner Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 2178 Gender:	Re: You can't use Science to prove or disprove God Reply #149 - Feb 6^th, 2016 at 4:40pm I changed the post while you were posting. The "Lord Knows" is a reference to the Two Ronnies clip.
Back to top	IP Logged