Page 2 of 10 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 228
  1. #26
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    what science defines it as that? I'd love to see because I've not heard that explanation
    That is what some groups are using as a definition and he happens to like it, which is fine, but science says nothing of the sort.

  2. #27
    Because I choose to. Neo.'s Avatar
    My Team
    Milwaukee Bucks
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    3,410
    That is what some groups are using as a definition and he happens to like it, which is fine, but science says nothing of the sort.
    yeah I know, I just want to hear more of his ridiculous explanation lol

  3. #28
    bandwagoner fans suck ducks's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Post Count
    71,514
    Where are the pro open boarders with all the crime illegals commit

    Oh wait last one cnn called the illegal a farm worker that got covicted killing people

  4. #29
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    yeah I know, I just want to hear more of his ridiculous explanation lol
    sorry.

    I do the same with derp.
    Mostly he does it to himself; let the rambling continue and wait for the few people to come try to dig him out of a hole.

  5. #30
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    So you wont admit you dont know what abortion means.
    Good deal. Mrs. Crutchfield cant handle her tactics of misspelling error ass smelling. But she can completely not understand a commonly used word. Abortion dumb fck, you dont abort a 5 yo kid, you know, already born? You want to argue what born and pregnant mean?

    Neophytes? wtf are you, just dumb?

    Physics prowess... I dont know physics that well.
    I am a molecular biology guy, remember... the Nobel Prize you gave me...

    Keep going.
    Well that’s wonderful because you feel wrong.

    And the feeling is more than mutual because you have lied your ass off.
    If you were really interested in stuff I would love to show you around, but I can see a chump picture situation occurring because you are paranoid. And I bet you would love to show me around as well.

    you seem to forget you asked me what I did and I summarized it. The other stuff I know about gas under pressure freezing is not my area of expertise. But I do understand the basics and you were just dead wrong. I am not an expert because I understand -295 under STP. The P is the important part which you just totally didn’t get. I have a pretty good grasp on biology chemistry and physics. But I am very narrow in the specifics of what I do, you should understand this if you really do what you say you do. You just get bent out of shape because I have trashed your science before. And you have the gall to use me as the expert in an argument with RG... did you even check my response to see if it was correct based on what you can read?
    You're a compulsive liar. This is certain.

  6. #31
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    You're a compulsive liar. This is certain.
    Grasp the 3 major areas of science versus what I actually do? And you failed to bold, I DO KNOW THE BASICS. Good omission, you should have just deleted as disingenuous as you are.
    Do you understand the expertise involved in actually doing a job? I can tell you about voltage from a theoretical point of view, but this does not mean I can go in a wire a building like a master electrician. I can tell you that freezing point of substances depends on the pressure you hold it at, along with temperature, something that completely escaped you, but Im not going to a well head and tell operators how to insulate their machinery properly. Trumpsters like you dont get the difference. Just throw a guy into a job who knows nothing about it. This is how I know you are a fake. You cant grasp very straightforward ideas and you write for Popular Science? Bull ... Popular Bull .

    You are grasping at the lack of air.
    Mrs. Crutchfield cant take it when she cant use her words.

    Thanks for going back for me.
    Do some more.

  7. #32
    6X ST MVP
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Post Count
    81,091
    I am not a pro lifer.
    Science says no such thing.

    Give me the definition of when a human life begins.
    And when you do, REALIZE, science does NOT define a human life.
    While you are at it, Mr. Science, science even has trouble defining what alive means. Look up viruses and you might get it, but probably not.
    You're a ty scientist. I can see why people are losing faith in science.

  8. #33
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    You're a ty scientist. I can see why people are losing faith in science.
    Im a ty scientist because I have told you science does not make calls that involve morals and undefined terms.
    Tell me what science has to say about God?

    No, I will answer it for you, absolutely nothing.
    Science has absolutely no say on whether a God or God's exist.
    Does this upset you?

    Tell me what science has to say about abortion right or wrong, absolutely nothing.
    If you want to know about the biological facts about abortions at different points in a pregnancy, science can give you some information, but there is no moral judgement call.

    Why cant you get this? And please stay on the board as I need to figure out people as dense as you are. What is actually blocking you from reasoning and your false sense of superiority.

  9. #34
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Grasp the 3 major areas of science versus what I actually do? And you failed to bold, I DO KNOW THE BASICS. Good omission, you should have just deleted as disingenuous as you are.
    Do you understand the expertise involved in actually doing a job? I can tell you about voltage from a theoretical point of view, but this does not mean I can go in a wire a building like a master electrician. I can tell you that freezing point of substances depends on the pressure you hold it at, along with temperature, something that completely escaped you, but Im not going to a well head and tell operators how to insulate their machinery properly. Trumpsters like you dont get the difference. Just throw a guy into a job who knows nothing about it. This is how I know you are a fake. You cant grasp very straightforward ideas and you write for Popular Science? Bull ... Popular Bull .

    You are grasping at the lack of air.
    Mrs. Crutchfield cant take it when she cant use her words.

    Thanks for going back for me.
    Do some more.
    I didn't omit anything. These are your words, not paraphrased. You said "I don't know physics that well" after saying "I have a pretty good grasp of biology, chemistry and physics".

    These two statements are in direct contrast especially since the claim to lack physics knowledge comes after the claim to know it pretty well. Did you suddenly forget?

    Your recourse? Blah blah Trumpster, blah blah Popular Science, blah blah Time Magazine, blah blah nature vs nurture.

    Get your lie straight.

  10. #35
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Im a ty scientist because I have told you science does not make calls that involve morals and undefined terms.
    Tell me what science has to say about God?

    No, I will answer it for you, absolutely nothing.
    Science has absolutely no say on whether a God or God's exist.
    Does this upset you?

    Tell me what science has to say about abortion right or wrong, absolutely nothing.
    If you want to know about the biological facts about abortions at different points in a pregnancy, science can give you some information, but there is no moral judgement call.

    Why cant you get this? And please stay on the board as I need to figure out people as dense as you are. What is actually blocking you from reasoning and your false sense of superiority.
    "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

    In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.

    "If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

    With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.

    "Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."

  11. #36
    Because I choose to. Neo.'s Avatar
    My Team
    Milwaukee Bucks
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    3,410
    "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

    In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.

    "If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

    With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.

    "Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
    that completely out of the blue and randomly with absolutely no explanation for it at all, the entire universe morphed out of a speck smaller than an atom

    very compelling explanation

  12. #37
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    "I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

    In life, Hawking was a vocal champion of the Big Bang theory — the idea that the universe began by exploding suddenly out of an ultradense singularity smaller than an atom. From this speck emerged all the matter, energy and empty space that the universe would ever contain, and all that raw material evolved into the cosmos we perceive today by following a strict set of scientific laws. To Hawking and many like-minded scientists, the combined laws of gravity, relativity, quantum physics and a few other rules could explain everything that ever happened or ever will happen in our known universe.

    "If you like, you can say the laws are the work of God, but that is more a definition of God than a proof of his existence," Hawking wrote.

    With the universe running on a scientifically guided autopilot, the only role for an all-powerful deity might be setting the initial conditions of the universe so that those laws could take shape — a divine creator who caused the Big Bang to bang, then stepped back to behold His work.

    "Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?" Hawking wrote. "I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator."
    You see this is BS.

    Follow one part of this, just one.

    But two years ago, a paper by Turok, Job Feldbrugge of the Perimeter Ins ute, and Jean-Luc Lehners of the Max Planck Ins ute for Gravitational Physics in Germany called the Hartle-Hawking proposal into question. The proposal is, of course, only viable if a universe that curves out of a dimensionless point in the way Hartle and Hawking imagined naturally grows into a universe like ours. Hawking and Hartle argued that indeed it would — that universes with no boundaries will tend to be huge, breathtakingly smooth, impressively flat, and expanding, just like the actual cosmos. “The trouble with Stephen and Jim’s approach is it was ambiguous,” Turok said — “deeply ambiguous.”

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

    And this is exactly happens over and over with science. And this is only one small problem, it seems big now but in the future it will be considered small and like now, will start MORPHING into philosopy.

    Just like Goedel has shown provocatively that our math is not based on sound logic. This is debated now and has been debated before by all the great scientists. From Aristotle (made some rules) to Newton, to Einstein. And now Hawking and others. Not only do we make up in science (modeling and math) both are highly doubtful in leading us TO KNOW everything. What they do is let us predict phenomena which is very powerful.
    But you are full of it if you think this has some great ending that will come to your fruition during YOUR lifetime because... Stephen Hawking has solved it!

    Why do people assume their time and the people of THEIR time have got it. We NOW understand!
    The hubris is unbelievable.

    And I doubt DMC will understand a word of this, but there it is.

  13. #38
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    If any posters are interested in this kind of stuff the story of Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, and Bishop Wilberforce you will see parallels. Darwin was not a man to argue his own theories, especially since his idea that variation should exist in populations was totally unexplained. And variation is what HIS natural selection was supposed to work on. Thomas Henry Huxley was more than willing to argue for natural selection against ANYONE even without any idea as to the source of variation (it could be God!). Huxley was a great orator and took on all comers even though the theory of evolution through natural selection was incomplete. He debated Wilberforce and other notable critics and ran over them while Darwin sat silent because he knew he did not have it all.

    Well we now have the source of variation. And it helps explain so much. But more noticeably it also opens up a can of worms in many other areas of evolution. There are still tons of stuff to be learned. Evolution and its explanations do not end with Darwin. It continues on. More questions, more knowledge, even more difficult questions arise. With so many variables involved. So physics with all its attempting to explain very fundamental phenomena, the stuff with the fewest variables using math, modeling, observation (because it the only way we have) is gonna figure out everything...?

    I find it unbelievable that we think there is some theory of everything, when all everything does is lead to more questions about everything. We are animals! Crafted by evolution thru natural selection. And so this means we will figure out everything... I just dont get it. People just dont read history, especially the history of science.

    done

  14. #39
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    that completely out of the blue and randomly with absolutely no explanation for it at all, the entire universe morphed out of a speck smaller than an atom

    very compelling explanation
    A god who morphed out of nothing did it is more compelling?

    Pretty sure Hawking explained a lot. You'd have to read it. But Hawking doesn't need to explain how everything works in order to dismiss a claim that was made without evidence.

  15. #40
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    You see this is BS.

    Follow one part of this, just one.

    But two years ago, a paper by Turok, Job Feldbrugge of the Perimeter Ins ute, and Jean-Luc Lehners of the Max Planck Ins ute for Gravitational Physics in Germany called the Hartle-Hawking proposal into question. The proposal is, of course, only viable if a universe that curves out of a dimensionless point in the way Hartle and Hawking imagined naturally grows into a universe like ours. Hawking and Hartle argued that indeed it would — that universes with no boundaries will tend to be huge, breathtakingly smooth, impressively flat, and expanding, just like the actual cosmos. “The trouble with Stephen and Jim’s approach is it was ambiguous,” Turok said — “deeply ambiguous.”

    https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-debate-hawkings-idea-that-the-universe-had-no-beginning-20190606/

    And this is exactly happens over and over with science. And this is only one small problem, it seems big now but in the future it will be considered small and like now, will start MORPHING into philosopy.

    Just like Goedel has shown provocatively that our math is not based on sound logic. This is debated now and has been debated before by all the great scientists. From Aristotle (made some rules) to Newton, to Einstein. And now Hawking and others. Not only do we make up in science (modeling and math) both are highly doubtful in leading us TO KNOW everything. What they do is let us predict phenomena which is very powerful.
    But you are full of it if you think this has some great ending that will come to your fruition during YOUR lifetime because... Stephen Hawking has solved it!

    Why do people assume their time and the people of THEIR time have got it. We NOW understand!
    The hubris is unbelievable.

    And I doubt DMC will understand a word of this, but there it is.
    So adding god explains away the ambiguousness of it? Stephen could have then just said "god did it" and poof, no more ambiguity.

  16. #41
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    So adding god explains away the ambiguousness of it? Stephen could have then just said "god did it" and poof, no more ambiguity.
    Thats not how science works fkn idiot.
    Just because we keep striving, YOU THINK there should be some payoff?
    The payoff is that some of the findings lead to the ability to predict, NOT we will know everything.
    Where the did you learn about Science, you just dont get it.

    You seriously believe because you work hard, good things will certainly come your way?
    Of course Hawking, nor puny me nor anyone else who understands the role of science is gonna give up and say "super Natural causes" problem solved! Science DOES NOT use the super natural to explain things because it explains nothing. But your problem is you think our mechanistic method which relies so heavily on math at the fundamental level will figure out everything. And that, is fkn silly. Like we are owed the knowledge of everything because of this method we have made up that seems perfectly reasonable to us? (Goedel and others have showed this fallacy)

    You need to completely rethink how you approach science when you write your next Popular Science article ya damn liar.
    You have made up your own religion without even realizing it.

    So adding God...
    You are such a disingenuous fck. How you have a job is beyond me. I hope you work alone, for your sake.

  17. #42
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    Thats not how science works fkn idiot.
    Just because we keep striving, YOU THINK there should be some payoff?
    The payoff is that some of the findings lead to the ability to predict, NOT we will know everything.
    Where the did you learn about Science, you just dont get it.

    You seriously believe because you work hard, good things will certainly come your way?
    Of course Hawking, nor puny me nor anyone else who understands the role of science is gonna give up and say "super Natural causes" problem solved! Science DOES NOT use the super natural to explain things because it explains nothing. But your problem is you think our mechanistic method which relies so heavily on math at the fundamental level will figure out everything. And that, is fkn silly. Like we are owed the knowledge of everything because of this method we have made up that seems perfectly reasonable to us? (Goedel and others have showed this fallacy)

    You need to completely rethink how you approach science when you write your next Popular Science article ya damn liar.
    You have made up your own religion without even realizing it.

    So adding God...
    You are such a disingenuous fck. How you have a job is beyond me. I hope you work alone, for your sake.
    Yeah you added God. Otherwise it would be "we don't know everything but science is our conduit to learning more about the universe around us" instead of saying something like "ethics and morals cannot be explained by science!" when they most certainly can, and your summary funnels down to "so god did it". You don't have to agree, and all the name calling and hissy fit throwing in the world won't change it.

  18. #43
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    If any posters are interested in this kind of stuff the story of Darwin, Thomas Henry Huxley, and Bishop Wilberforce you will see parallels. Darwin was not a man to argue his own theories, especially since his idea that variation should exist in populations was totally unexplained. And variation is what HIS natural selection was supposed to work on. Thomas Henry Huxley was more than willing to argue for natural selection against ANYONE even without any idea as to the source of variation (it could be God!). Huxley was a great orator and took on all comers even though the theory of evolution through natural selection was incomplete. He debated Wilberforce and other notable critics and ran over them while Darwin sat silent because he knew he did not have it all.

    Well we now have the source of variation. And it helps explain so much. But more noticeably it also opens up a can of worms in many other areas of evolution. There are still tons of stuff to be learned. Evolution and its explanations do not end with Darwin. It continues on. More questions, more knowledge, even more difficult questions arise. With so many variables involved. So physics with all its attempting to explain very fundamental phenomena, the stuff with the fewest variables using math, modeling, observation (because it the only way we have) is gonna figure out everything...?

    I find it unbelievable that we think there is some theory of everything, when all everything does is lead to more questions about everything. We are animals! Crafted by evolution thru natural selection. And so this means we will figure out everything... I just dont get it. People just dont read history, especially the history of science.

    done
    Origin of Species. God created species. Stop with the science mumbo jumbo.

    Leading to more questions is ok. Needing to know everything so accepting nonsensical suggestions like a supernatural being did it, that's just lazy.

  19. #44
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    Yeah you added God. Otherwise it would be "we don't know everything but science is our conduit to learning more about the universe around us" instead of saying something like "ethics and morals cannot be explained by science!" when they most certainly can, and your summary funnels down to "so god did it". You don't have to agree, and all the name calling and hissy fit throwing in the world won't change it.
    No it does not.
    It funnels down to man, your God.
    We are an strange afterthought of Evolution.

    And I never said anything like God is the conduit to learning about the universe. Learning about the universe is a manmade method that is highly fallible and will never be complete.
    Yeah I have a tendency to type more when a liar like yourself is so blatantly disingenuous.

  20. #45
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    Origin of Species. God created species. Stop with the science mumbo jumbo.

    Leading to more questions is ok. Needing to know everything so accepting nonsensical suggestions like a supernatural being did it, that's just lazy.
    You have no fkn idea what you are even saying.
    You dont even know these people I am referring to as I thought.
    Accepting is far different than understanding why you disingenuous fool. Religion and philosophy have been with us a lot longer. Thats about it. Science does not get rid of them. Its a totally different way of thinking because it is so pleasantly logical to us, the ape. Except that its not necessarily logical. But its still the coolest tool we have imo when used properly.

    You of all people should hate science with your prolific use of sophistry, you would make a philosopher, a very bad one, but thats where you need direct your lack of resources.

  21. #46
    my unders, my frgn whites pgardn's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Post Count
    38,148
    Origin of Species. God created species. Stop with the science mumbo jumbo.

    Leading to more questions is ok. Needing to know everything so accepting nonsensical suggestions like a supernatural being did it, that's just lazy.
    Where did I ever say this.
    You are an absolute liar.

    Its like you have taken a basic book on science that says science is used to answer VERY SPECIFIC questions, deleted the very specific, and then skipped to why religion that tries to explain physical events using a super natural power is not a preferable method (and it is indeed not)

  22. #47
    Because I choose to. Neo.'s Avatar
    My Team
    Milwaukee Bucks
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Post Count
    3,410
    A god who morphed out of nothing did it is more compelling?
    imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion

    but to each their own

    Pretty sure Hawking explained a lot. You'd have to read it. But Hawking doesn't need to explain how everything works in order to dismiss a claim that was made without evidence.
    any scientist that wants to knock religion for basis if their beliefs on "faith" and the bible, yet believes in non-factual non-proven theories like the big bang (and then wants to teach them as if they are absolute proven fact) has no room to talk because they are literally doing the exact same thing as people who put belief in God.

  23. #48
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Grasp the 3 major areas of science versus what I actually do? And you failed to bold, I DO KNOW THE BASICS. Good omission, you should have just deleted as disingenuous as you are.
    Do you understand the expertise involved in actually doing a job? I can tell you about voltage from a theoretical point of view, but this does not mean I can go in a wire a building like a master electrician. I can tell you that freezing point of substances depends on the pressure you hold it at, along with temperature, something that completely escaped you, but Im not going to a well head and tell operators how to insulate their machinery properly. Trumpsters like you dont get the difference. Just throw a guy into a job who knows nothing about it. This is how I know you are a fake. You cant grasp very straightforward ideas and you write for Popular Science? Bull ... Popular Bull .

    You are grasping at the lack of air.
    Mrs. Crutchfield cant take it when she cant use her words.

    Thanks for going back for me.
    Do some more.
    DMC does not care about what is true. Just what "gotcha" he can get away with.

    A genyoowine sociopath.

  24. #49
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion.
    Argument from incredulity, also known as personal incredulity fallacy, is a logical fallacy in which someone concludes that something must not be true (or false) since they cannot believe or imagine it being true (or false).

    This type of fallacious move is frequently used in debates over science and religion when certain theories and claims differ from our own deeply held beliefs.

    It belongs into the category of informal fallacies, and is a form of appeal to ignorance.
    https://fallacyinlogic.com/argument-...-and-examples/


    1: if the way the universe and our local presentation/cir stances fell out didn't allow for the possibility of life, you wouldn't be around to think about it. it isn't that surprising
    2: you do not have any way of assessing the probability of the universe ending up the way it did, because you do not have any other universes to actually compare it to.

    I could just as easily say: the odds of the universe ending up the way it did is 1.0, with just as much justification.

    As far as reasons go, this is an especially ty/flawed one that is easily picked apart.

  25. #50
    Got Woke? DMC's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Post Count
    90,829
    imho yes, it makes more sense that a universe that works harmoniously and a planet with perfect balance and physics to allow trillions of life forms to all coexist, was intelligently created than happened by a googolplex's chance to come together harmoniously from a random nonsensical chaotic explosion

    but to each their own
    Adding the god makes it more complicated, not less. You cannot explain the origins of the god, so likely you just accept this god always existed. But then there becomes a paradox. If you try to explain the origins of the god, then you have to explain the origins of the origins. Infinite regress begins. God of the gaps (I don't know so I will say god did it to feel better about not knowing) is a fleeting god, getting smaller the more we learn.
    any scientist that wants to knock religion for basis if their beliefs on "faith" and the bible, yet believes in non-factual non-proven theories like the big bang (and then wants to teach them as if they are absolute proven fact) has no room to talk because they are literally doing the exact same thing as people who put belief in God.
    Except scientists don't live to believe in a theory. They live to disprove it. What religion espouses doubt as a core tenet? What religion has falsifiable god claims?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •