GOD EXISTS

Apologies. I thought you were discussing the issue from an atheist perspective. That is believing something other than a conscious Creator caused the Big Bang.

Spacekiwi wrote:Except we don't believe, we are arguing as to which is most likely to be true, as we aren't sure how the physics changed, so we experiment and theorise. we dont belive, we know the universe exists, so its merely a matter of determining how, of which a supernatural deity ranks rather low on the currently accepted most plausible and defendable theories.

PeterZ wrote:Since all that you post prooves that the cause of creation remains a hypothesis perhaps even a theory, the Oxford definition supports my position. That belief absent proof requires faith.

Spacekiwi wrote:...we know how the universe started (big bang), we know how iut grew, and how long that took, (inflation over 13 billion years)...

No, we believe that is how it happened it is the "Big Bang Theory" not "Law"

Spacekiwi wrote:...independent of the presence, or absence of any creator. Therefore, it is more likely that there is no creator

You don't know that. Who demanded those laws - why is C 185,000 M/S instead of 192,000? who came up with that #, who decided on the gravitational constant of the universe?

Spacekiwi wrote:...as this would require an increase in the complexity of the description and observation system...

Why? Dose a kids Hot-Wheel track have to be more complex to work because someone assembled it, or would it have to be more complex to work on it's own without someone assembling it? How does the car get on the track by itself, let alone start running down the track? Who made the car? Add someone to build the track, place the car on the track & then launch the car down the track & it becomes just some strips of plastic. the kid doesn't need to keep putting his hands in while the car is in motion. He just sits back and watches, until the car stops or jumps the track. Then he makes an adjustment and sends it going again. Much simpler than a self spawning Hot-Wheel track that somehow produces it's own car & sends it down the track.

Spacekiwi wrote:Except we don't believe, we are arguing as to which is most likely to be true, as we aren't sure how the physics changed, so we experiment and theorise. we dont belive, we know the universe exists, so its merely a matter of determining how, of which a supernatural deity ranks rather low on the currently accepted most plausible and defendable theories.

Except, more often than not, those "Theories" become "Pet Theories" that a particular scientist "believes" more in than another, & they often skew their data in-favor of their "belief" (That data doesn't coincide...well it must of had interference we'll discount it). thus it is their "belief" & not just data, as with the continuing war between Quantum & Macro physicists. Or the mini-war that broke out among "String" theorists, between 10 or 11 dimensions (like the universe has some rule limiting the number of dimensions it's allowed to have...unless some intelligent being decided on the odd & arbitrary number 11) which resulted in a split to "M" theory. The term "M Theory" being used to denote their succession from the "false religion" of the hated "String Theorists" and their "heresy" of 10 dimensions. "MUST BURN THE HERETICS AT THE STAKE!!!" Don't tell me it's not a "Belief". & PeterZ is right that Atheism is by definition a "Religion". It is their "belief" in the supernatural, even if that "belief" is that there is none.

MAD-4A wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Except we don't believe, we are arguing as to which is most likely to be true, as we aren't sure how the physics changed, so we experiment and theorise. we dont belive, we know the universe exists, so its merely a matter of determining how, of which a supernatural deity ranks rather low on the currently accepted most plausible and defendable theories.

Except, more often than not, those "Theories" become "Pet Theories" that a particular scientist "believes" more in than another, & they often skew their data in-favor of their "belief" (That data doesn't coincide...well it must of had interference we'll discount it). thus it is their "belief" & not just data, as with the continuing war between Quantum & Macro physicists. Or the mini-war that broke out among "String" theorists, between 10 or 11 dimensions (like the universe has some rule limiting the number of dimensions it's allowed to have...unless some intelligent being decided on the odd & arbitrary number 11) which resulted in a split to "M" theory. The term "M Theory" being used to denote their succession from the "false religion" of the hated "String Theorists" and their "heresy" of 10 dimensions. "MUST BURN THE HERETICS AT THE STAKE!!!" Don't tell me it's not a "Belief". & PeterZ is right that Atheism is by definition a "Religion". It is their "belief" in the supernatural, even if that "belief" is that there is none.

If you exchange scientist with religious leader we have the de facto recipe for most of the wars in human history. I'll take a scientist theory over any religious leaders "theory".

Joat42 wrote:If you exchange scientist with religious leader we have the de facto recipe for most of the wars in human history. I'll take a scientist theory over any religious leaders "theory".

regardless of what title a person is given, a "theory" is still an unproven belief.

MAD-4A wrote:

Joat42 wrote:If you exchange scientist with religious leader we have the de facto recipe for most of the wars in human history. I'll take a scientist theory over any religious leaders "theory".

regardless of what title a person is given, a "theory" is still an unproven belief.

Yes, but the big difference between science and religion is that in most cases a scientific theory is based on observable facts in one way or another. A religious belief in a god doesn't have any observable facts at all.

MAD-4A wrote:

Joat42 wrote:If you exchange scientist with religious leader we have the de facto recipe for most of the wars in human history. I'll take a scientist theory over any religious leaders "theory".

regardless of what title a person is given, a "theory" is still an unproven belief.

MAD-4A--No, no, no no. A "Theory" is far from an unproven belief. It is the best conclusion, based on the facts on hand, on being able to explain something and make predictions on future events based on that conclusion. Theories can be modified or even discarded (see N-Rays), but only if evidence/facts can be introduced to invalidate the theory.

One simple example: Gravity. We've known things falls down to the ground since Ugg dropped a rock from his hands onto his big toe (shortly thereafter, Ugg also invented cussing...). But why rocks behaved that way was subject to various hypothesis over the centuries. It was not until Issac Newton that a Theory was developed, with mathematics to show why things would fall and providing the ability to test it anywhere in the world and in space. And indeed, with Modifications, that theory still works.

A second one: Continental Drift. When first proposed, by Alfred Wenger, it was roundly ridiculed because while it explained some facts (why the continents roughly fit together and why some flora/fauna was nearly the same) he could not describe or prove a mechanism for his 'moving' continents. It took some time and the development of better instruments to show that continents did indeed move (and are moving still).

Some theories are discarded (AEther in space) and others are subject to vigorous debate (the aforementioned String or dimensional theories). But they all start with facts, many of which have only been observed by man in the past 30-40 years.

Now, we know as much as we know anything, with all the facts we have to hand, that the Universe is immense, is still expanding, and that the best Theory we have, given the facts in evidence at this time is a very old universe that began with a rapid expansion billions of years ago.

Can that change as time goes on, and more data, more facts are gathered? Absolutely. But right now, to explain what we do know, the "Big Bang" Theory (terrible name, but we're stuck with it) explains much of what we know and can be used to make predictions of future discoveries (like the 'background' radiation in the Universe, a 'signature' of the Big Bang).

Religion relies on faith; it's facts encompassed and surrounded by belief. It cannot have Theories; either things are Truth or False as God has directed. It is a much surer and less worrisome way of viewing the Cosmos.

It is also bears no resemblence to what Science calls a Theory.

Hutch wrote:

MAD-4A wrote:regardless of what title a person is given, a "theory" is still an unproven belief.

MAD-4A--No, no, no no. A "Theory" is far from an unproven belief. It is the best conclusion, based on the facts on hand, on being able to explain something and make predictions on future events based on that conclusion.

Thank you.... beat me to it.

It is astonishing how often that "it's only a theory" misunderstanding about how that term is used in science is encountered in these types of discussions.

Buuuuut...

It was not until Issac Newton that a Theory was developed, with mathematics to show why things would fall and providing the ability to test it anywhere in the world and in space. And indeed, with Modifications, that theory still works.

Not really...

Although sometimes people call it Newton's Theory of Gravitation, it was really only a Law. (Not to downplay Newton's accomplishment... but that's so much easier to formulate than a Theory).

Newton never really managed a proper Theory of Gravity. He could describe how gravity behaved but could not explain why.

We didn't get a real workable Theory of Gravity until Einstein came along with general relativity.

gcomeau wrote:...Although sometimes people call it Newton's Theory of Gravitation, it was really only a Law. (Not to downplay Newton's accomplishment... but that's so much easier to formulate than a Theory)...

What? No. A "Law" is something Proven, a Theory is something that is believed but not proven. You start with a hypothesis which is a speculation based on observation. After positive testing, it can be considered a theory. Once it is proven then it becomes a Law. So many people misuse the word Theory to mean something proven - it is not, that is a Law.

MAD-4A wrote:

gcomeau wrote:...Although sometimes people call it Newton's Theory of Gravitation, it was really only a Law. (Not to downplay Newton's accomplishment... but that's so much easier to formulate than a Theory)...

What? No. A "Law" is something Proven, a Theory is something that is believed but not proven. You start with a hypothesis which is a speculation based on observation. After positive testing, it can be considered a theory. Once it is proven then it becomes a Law. So many people misuse the word Theory to mean something proven - it is not, that is a Law.

Those words (Hypothesis, Theory, Law); I don't think they mean what you think they mean.

Let's try to define terms here (from wikipedia):

Hypothesis:

A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories. Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory. A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted hypothesis proposed for further research

Scientific Theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.As with most (if not all) forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are inductive in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability.

Law:

A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. Factual and well-confirmed statements like "Mercury is liquid at standard temperature and pressure" are considered too specific to qualify as scientific laws. A central problem in the philosophy of science, going back to David Hume, is that of distinguishing causal relationships (such as those implied by laws) from principles that arise due to constant conjunction.[1]

Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated. Ohm's law only applies to linear networks, Newton's law of universal gravitation only applies in weak gravitational fields, the early laws of aerodynamics such as Bernoulli's principle do not apply in case of compressible flow such as occurs in transonic and supersonic flight, Hooke's law only applies to strain below the elastic limit, etc. These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply.

And that's where I'm coming from.