I don't think that science proves that there is no GodI think that science shows that stuff could have happened quite well without the existence of a deity.
No point complicating things unnecessarily.
(No point complicating things unnecessarily.
in vino veritas,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:12,
archived)
I don't think it is ever possible to prove the existence of anythingthat is by its own definition outside of the bounds of rationality.
For example they've been trying for years to tell me that my friend Bobo doesn't exist, but I know he does, don't you Bobo?
What's that Bobo? No surely not, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT BOBO - NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER DESERVED IT! I CAN'T DO IT! I WON'T DO IT!
alright, alright, just let me get the axe out.
(For example they've been trying for years to tell me that my friend Bobo doesn't exist, but I know he does, don't you Bobo?
What's that Bobo? No surely not, THEY DON'T DESERVE IT BOBO - NONE OF THEM HAVE EVER DESERVED IT! I CAN'T DO IT! I WON'T DO IT!
alright, alright, just let me get the axe out.
Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:17,
archived)
What, if I may ask,is the axe in?
( LordManley twitter.com/LordManley,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:19,
archived)
my hand currently Griffin Saver Something, something, 2006, something.,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:21,
archived)
indeedbut if Science suddenly came up with a mathematical answer to the cause of the big bang that said it seems to be a massive water buffalo with omnipresent abilities and startling control over matter, then they would possibly describe it as "godlike".
However, while religion jumps up and down and says "I worshipped the water buffalo all along, you people with your beardy bloke were always wrong and now we must have a war", the scientists would be wondering where this God thing came from in the first place and who it's creator was.
Or similar
(However, while religion jumps up and down and says "I worshipped the water buffalo all along, you people with your beardy bloke were always wrong and now we must have a war", the scientists would be wondering where this God thing came from in the first place and who it's creator was.
Or similar
HappyToast Groat froth,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22,
archived)
I recall reading of one scientistwho was working on Big Bang theory and had worked out that matter appeared in the Universe before the Big Bang. Not very long before though. He calculated that the period of time between the appearance of this matter and the Big Bang it sparked off, was about the same amount of time to say, "let there be light," in hebrew.
It means nothing.
(It means nothing.
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:25,
archived)
hahahahahahahIt's also the same amount of time as it takes to say "I fancy a wank" or "that curry I had last night is really messing with me innards, hang on a sec, I'm just going to the loo" in ancient Maori.
( HappyToast Groat froth,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:28,
archived)
I don't think it's possible to prove the existence of anything, ever.But it's possible to disprove things, that is, to come up with better theories than the ones that say those things exist.
(Now I have to go somewhere, I'm late. *vanishes*)
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:22,
archived)
(Now I have to go somewhere, I'm late. *vanishes*)
I think you've got that the wrong way round.You can prove something does exist by finding it. You cannot prove that something doesn't exist until you've looked absolutely everywhere for it (and are sure that it isn't just behind you or moving away every time you get close).
( Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29,
archived)
Yes.It's not the job of science (or philosophy) to prove things, but to produce better theories.
www.amazon.com/Retreat-Commitment-William-Warren-Bartley/dp/081269127X
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:19,
archived)
www.amazon.com/Retreat-Commitment-William-Warren-Bartley/dp/081269127X
I would love to get into this conversation morebut I feel my knowledge of the various theories is too shallow.
(
mr horrible up yours, dickface,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:23,
archived)
Meh, I bet you know it all alreadyafter years of exposure to me and Leigh and Rob and other Popper fans. Gotta go, anyway, bye.
(,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:28,
archived)
You can prove something DOES existhowever it is impossible to prove that something DOESN'T. It's known as falsifiability.
For example, the statements, "All ravens are black" and "No ravens are white" are not proveable - even if you gathered up all the ravens currently in the universe, you cannot account for all the possible ravens that might spring into existence between now and the end of time, or even those that have already ceased to exist.
However, the statement "Some ravens are black" is proveable, obviously, you just have to see a black raven.
Hence I agree entirely with the sentiments above about Dawkins being an unremitting twunt.
(For example, the statements, "All ravens are black" and "No ravens are white" are not proveable - even if you gathered up all the ravens currently in the universe, you cannot account for all the possible ravens that might spring into existence between now and the end of time, or even those that have already ceased to exist.
However, the statement "Some ravens are black" is proveable, obviously, you just have to see a black raven.
Hence I agree entirely with the sentiments above about Dawkins being an unremitting twunt.
Hamster Trippin' aka Mr. Titts,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:29,
archived)
I disagree.I don't think science shows that at all. Not without needlessly complicating things itself to make it seem that way. It doesn't necessarily follow that there must be a God, but science is a LOOOONG way from showing that everything could have just happened like this anyway.
check out some M-theory. It just takes it back past the Big Bang still without answering any questions.
(check out some M-theory. It just takes it back past the Big Bang still without answering any questions.
Afinkawan Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango,
Mon 4 Dec 2006, 17:21,
archived)