Not in the slightest.
Black holes are predicted by a theory that is testable. That theory has been tested in other ways, and been found to be sound. So we have a reason to, and the ability to, go ahead and make predictions about the nature of these predicted black holes, and test for their existence.
And - what do we find? Well, that the universe seems to behave as we predicted it would. Thus the evidence strongly suggests that there are supermassive black holes at the centre of most galaxies, and that there're smaller ones elsewhere. Score one of Einstein and Hawking.
Had the universe differed radically from the predictions, then the theory would be ditched. That's why noone believes in phlogiston any more.
What we have is a picture in which a theory explains some phenomena in an efficient manner, and makes testable predictions about others. The god hypothesis does neither of these things.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:21, Share, Reply)
Black holes are predicted by a theory that is testable. That theory has been tested in other ways, and been found to be sound. So we have a reason to, and the ability to, go ahead and make predictions about the nature of these predicted black holes, and test for their existence.
And - what do we find? Well, that the universe seems to behave as we predicted it would. Thus the evidence strongly suggests that there are supermassive black holes at the centre of most galaxies, and that there're smaller ones elsewhere. Score one of Einstein and Hawking.
Had the universe differed radically from the predictions, then the theory would be ditched. That's why noone believes in phlogiston any more.
What we have is a picture in which a theory explains some phenomena in an efficient manner, and makes testable predictions about others. The god hypothesis does neither of these things.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:21, Share, Reply)
On the contrary,
a deity explains some otherwise inexplicable phenomena in an efficient manner.
There is no evidence for it and we may have to readdress, but for the moment it fits - it is VERY similar to black holes.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:25, Share, Reply)
a deity explains some otherwise inexplicable phenomena in an efficient manner.
There is no evidence for it and we may have to readdress, but for the moment it fits - it is VERY similar to black holes.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:25, Share, Reply)
What phenomena are you referring to, specifically?
With which phenomena does the input of a god make the most sense?
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:29, Share, Reply)
With which phenomena does the input of a god make the most sense?
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:29, Share, Reply)
Pretty much EVERYTHING for which we have no answer.
See also 'magic'.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:32, Share, Reply)
See also 'magic'.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:32, Share, Reply)
That's not an explanation.
That's just a way of saying "Dunno, mate".
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:35, Share, Reply)
That's just a way of saying "Dunno, mate".
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:35, Share, Reply)
Not at all.
Imagine a hitherto explained phenomenon. Now invoke a deity to "explain" it. Do we really have a better grip on that phenomenon? No. We're just saying "God did it". That's not an explanation.
What we do have, though, is a whole range of other things to explain, such as the nature and existence of that deity - what kind of thing it is, how it interacts with the world, and so on - a deity that we've invoked merely to explain the phenomenon, and without any supporting or independently-testable reason.
That's not an efficient answer. It's a refusal to answer.
It's not the same as with black holes, which - as I explained - are predicted by a theory that is independently testable, and the existence of which is in itself independently testable in principle.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:34, Share, Reply)
Imagine a hitherto explained phenomenon. Now invoke a deity to "explain" it. Do we really have a better grip on that phenomenon? No. We're just saying "God did it". That's not an explanation.
What we do have, though, is a whole range of other things to explain, such as the nature and existence of that deity - what kind of thing it is, how it interacts with the world, and so on - a deity that we've invoked merely to explain the phenomenon, and without any supporting or independently-testable reason.
That's not an efficient answer. It's a refusal to answer.
It's not the same as with black holes, which - as I explained - are predicted by a theory that is independently testable, and the existence of which is in itself independently testable in principle.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 16:34, Share, Reply)
"God did it" IS an explanation.
I accept that you reject that hypothesis - I do myself, but just because it is not our belief that does not negate its innate value.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 17:50, Share, Reply)
I accept that you reject that hypothesis - I do myself, but just because it is not our belief that does not negate its innate value.
( , Mon 22 Nov 2010, 17:50, Share, Reply)
Innate value?
What currency are you using to value God?
It's an untestable position, just one of an infinite number of possible explanations for shit we don't understand yet.
If you ascribe value to something that by definition can never be tested (it's faith, you're not meant to prove it) and for which an infinite number of alternative variations exist, infinite dilution of your value system to worthlessness is the only logical conclusion.
( , Sun 28 Nov 2010, 15:30, Share, Reply)
What currency are you using to value God?
It's an untestable position, just one of an infinite number of possible explanations for shit we don't understand yet.
If you ascribe value to something that by definition can never be tested (it's faith, you're not meant to prove it) and for which an infinite number of alternative variations exist, infinite dilution of your value system to worthlessness is the only logical conclusion.
( , Sun 28 Nov 2010, 15:30, Share, Reply)