Disproofs of God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

empirical evidence please.

Why are you repeating this idiocy? Conjectures, hypotheses etc don't have evidence - that's why they're just conjectures and hypotheses rather than facts and theories. All that's required of them is plausibility, why is why your white noise claim "god" fails at the first hurdle even as an hypothesis.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'll and that to the list of things you don't understand.   

Look,can you falsify or verify that the universe is an infinite volume. Yes or no?

[ProfessorDavey]

Just for clarity here, 'he' here is Steve not Vlad, and I don't think he's actually put forward a definition, rather made a statement that is dependent on a circular definition

That's right - and that demonstrates his implicit assumption that god must mean what he thinks it does.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Why are you repeating this idiocy? Conjectures, hypotheses etc don't have evidence - that's why they're just conjectures and hypotheses rather than facts and theories. All that's required of them is plausibility, why is why your white noise claim "god" fails at the first hurdle even as an hypothesis.

Plausibility is not a scientific term. Sounds like you have opened a can of turdpolish in the hope that a piece of legalese you had in your pocket can be slid craftily and frictionlessly into the conversation.

[Stranger]

Look,can you falsify or verify that the universe is an infinite volume. Yes or no?

We can falsify or verify the theory that makes the prediction. That's what science does. It builds models and tests them against reality. It's very rare to be able to directly test every aspect of a model (in fact, strictly speaking, it's actually impossible for any theory).

[Nearly Sane]

That's right - and that demonstrates his implicit assumption that god must mean what he thinks it does.

I think Steve's faith is way less absolute than that.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Look,can you falsify or verify that the universe is an infinite volume. Yes or no?

Dear god but you struggle. Before the Large Hadron Collider the Higgs-Boson was a plausible explanation for a known gap in scientific understanding. The evidence for it arrived when the LHC produced its results.

Imagine though that before those results were available the Higgs-Boson hypothesis was widely and seriously discussed, when some fuckwit arrived with, “look, can you falsify or verify the Higgs-Boson. Yes or no?”. What would you think of him?     

[SteveH]

No, that's you just using the circularity of your definition in a more long winded way.

No, that you just being typically snide.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, that you just being typically snide.

Maybe you can address my point in reply 192 and 202.

I don't think I am being snide, but I do agree that the issue is entirely definitional and circular - in effect you make an implicit assumption about the nature of god (omnipotent, creator, omnipresent and singular) and then use that the universe must require that god if god exists.

But that is a 'no shit Sherlock' kind of argument but built on the flimsiest of foundations, namely that unless you can prove that god (as you assume he/she/it to be) actually exists then the rest is mere handwaving. And indeed the argument doesn't progress the discussion of whether god actually exists further one iota.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Dear god but you struggle. Before the Large Hadron Collider the Higgs-Boson was a plausible explanation for a known gap in scientific understanding. The evidence for it arrived when the LHC produced its results.

Imagine though that before those results were available the Higgs-Boson hypothesis was widely and seriously discussed, when some fuckwit arrived with, “look, can you falsify or verify the Higgs-Boson. Yes or no?”. What would you think of him?   

No Hillside I expect science to search for the necessary entity.......or give up.

 As long as particles were discoverable any particle proposed has been expected to be able to be detected. Shit analogy and straw man from Le maison de Hillside. Purveyors of exqueezeet tared poleeshe since two sousand et four.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

We can falsify or verify the theory that makes the prediction. That's what science does. It builds models and tests them against reality. It's very rare to be able to directly test every aspect of a model (in fact, strictly speaking, it's actually impossible for any theory).

So in this case is it a yes or a no?

[Nearly Sane]

No, that you just being typically snide.

Ah your old mind reading schtick. Even If I was being snide, it won't invalidate the point that you are creating a circularity. Any chance you could address that rather indulge in a evasive ad hominem because 'nasty man hurty you'?

[Nearly Sane]

No Hillside I expect science to search for the necessary entity.......or give up.

Begging the question that there is any necessary entity, that there is only a single entity, and that a necessary entity is possible. And then assuming that it is findable by science, and that it is the point of science - quite impressively flawed short sentence from you.

[Stranger]

So in this case is it a yes or a no?

Of course we can't directly measure the size of the universe (except to say that it's at least as large as the observable universe) but, if you recall, your claim was "science cannot deal with an infinite universe" (#183), which isn't the same thing at all as asking for direct evidence. All you are doing here is showing us (yet again) how little you understand.

And while you're asking all these dimwitted questions (you only seemed to raise the issue of the universe to avoid my points in #182), I'm still waiting for any hint of an argument for how something can be necessary and that thing having the characteristics of some god or for any resolution of the apparent logical contradictions involved...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Begging the question that there is any necessary entity, that there is only a single entity, and that a necessary entity is possible. And then assuming that it is findable by science, and that it is the point of science - quite impressively flawed short sentence from you.

No, I’m putting the necessary entity through as a particle.
I’m afraid then sir, I’m going to have to ask you to leave as you have no jurisdiction here....or anywhere actually.

[Nearly Sane]

No, I’m putting the necessary entity through as a particle.
I’m afraid then sir, I’m going to have to ask you to leave as you have no jurisdiction here....or anywhere actually.

'Green ideas sleep furiously'

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Begging the question that there is any necessary entity, that there is only a single entity, and that a necessary entity is possible. And then assuming that it is findable by science, and that it is the point of science - quite impressively flawed short sentence from you.

Of course there is a necessary entity since there are hierarchies of dependency among other things.

You do raise interesting points though. Is it findable by science? I say no but we have a whole bunch of young philosophers here, half togas, letting the fabric fall over their glistening thighs, their biceps rippling as they athletically vie to catch a metaphor here, a fallacy there................................a whole bunch of , Er, philosophers here who suggest that we’re it to exist it would be an uncontious, natural type thing and therefore presumably......detectable.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course there is a necessary entity since there are hierarchies of dependency among other things. ...

Vacuous assertion does not a demonstration make.

[ProfessorDavey]

Of course there is a necessary entity since there are hierarchies of dependency among other things.

Only if you consider that complexity derives in a hierarchical top-down manner, without redundancy. That isn't always the case - in many cases complexity derives from self assembly of simpler components and there is often redundancy - in other words no one simple components is absolutely required to exist (a necessary entity) for the more complex entity to arise. Each simple components may easily be replaced by another simple entity with similar properties. In this case there is no necessary entity.

The reverse is also true (see my synapse example) where more than one entity is a necessary entity meaning that without them the more complex entity cannot exist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vacuous assertion does not a demonstration make.

I think ‘ There is a necessary entity’ might be an assertion but whether it is vacuous......you need to demonstrate it.

There is a necessary entity derived from hierarchies of dependencies make it more than just an assertion.

[ProfessorDavey]

There is a necessary entity derived from hierarchies of dependencies make it more than just an assertion.

That is an assertion and one that I have challenged - I don't think you can presume that there must always be a necessary entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Only if you consider that complexity derives in a hierarchical top-down manner, without redundancy. That isn't always the case - in many cases complexity derives from self assembly of simpler components and there is often redun

. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gK-byzdp-DQ

dancy - in other words no one simple components is absolutely required to exist (a necessary entity) for the more complex entity to arise. Each simple components may easily be replaced by another simple entity with similar properties. In this case there is no necessary entity.

The reverse is also true (see my synapse example) where more than one entity is a necessary entity meaning that without them the more complex entity cannot exist.

[ProfessorDavey]

. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gK-byzdp-DQ

I genuinely think you have lost it now Vlad.

[Roses]

I genuinely think you have lost it now Vlad.

I think he lost the plot a long time ago.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No I thought it was most apt.