Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (3)

[Doveaman]

What time was it in the singularity?

Zero.

And how much space did it contain?

Um...it's a singularity. It's a point-like object.

If there was no time a space in the singularity, were did time and space come from?

Uh - a hypothetical explanation is still an explanation. It's just not directly empirically supported - for now.

How many years has it not been supported? And how many years will it continue to not be supported?

Since there is no empirical support for your hypothetical explanations then “God did it” should not be a problem.

It is also still God-of-the-gaps faulty logic.

And all that hypothetical unconfirmed stuff is also science-of-the-gaps.

Weather blind or not it still constitutes faith - hypothetical faith.

No, it doesn't.

If it’s hypothetical then faith is required to make sense of it.
[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[AintNoMonkey]

I'm sure our resident omnipotent Skaloop can whip one up

Yo 'Loop, poof me up a bottle of this junk. Also, poof me up some super powers. Thanks, Your Loopyness.

Definitely need to try more.

Not least because I need something good for Sazerac-making

My favorite is Maker's Mark, but Jack Daniels and Gentleman Jack are both delicious. But I don't mix whiskey with anything but ice.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

How many years has it not been supported?

approximately 13.5 billion

And how many years will it continue to not be supported?

Until it is disproven, or until evidence is found to support it. How are you posting in a science forum while not understanding what a hypothesis is?

Since there is no empirical support for your hypothetical explanations then “God did it” should not be a problem.

goddidit has the same amount of evidence as this hypothesis. Right?

And all that hypothetical unconfirmed stuff is also science-of-the-gaps.

Science is all about the gaps and trying to fill them. You're apparently just interested in making sure they stay gaps. Provide something besides 'goddidit', or get out of the thread.

If it’s hypothetical then faith is required to make sense of it.

Homework assignment: Read this: Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Post a summary here, so that we know you read it. Until you demonstrate knowledge of what a hypothesis is, your posts will be useless.

 

[Nathan Poe]

God did it.
God did it.

Magical Space Llamas did it.

Magical Space Llamas did it.

Seems like in all of two sentences, I've caught up with the sum total of creationist "science."

 

[kenblaster5000]

YouTube - H.H. Dalai lama speech on Tibet New year(2010) B

Is this your magical space llama god who did it?

 

[Meshach]

YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

Come to think of it , I have never seen this Dawkins fellow either. One has to be careful who they listen too. Eternal life is in the balance.

 

[sandwiches]

Come to think of it , I have never seen this Dawkins fellow either. One has to be careful who they listen too. Eternal life is in the balance.

That's assuming there's eternal life for humans.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

YouTube - The Dawkins Delusion

YouTube - Richard Dawkins -- The God Delusion

Oh look, it's concrete evidence of richard dawkins! Find me some of god.

 

[kenblaster5000]

YouTube - You Are of Your Father the Devil

 

[Nostromo]

How are you posting in a science forum while not understanding what a hypothesis is?

I'm pretty sure his remit is winding people up until they do something worthy of banning, or just give up altogether.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

YouTube - You Are of Your Father the Devil

What does this have to do with the thread?

 

[AintNoMonkey]

You mean ad hominem attacks aren't thread-relevent?

 

[Doveaman]

approximately 13.5 billion

13.5 billion years of pathetic imaginary ideas and not science.

Until it is disproven, or until evidence is found to support it.

Blind faith.

How are you posting in a science forum while not understanding what a hypothesis is?

Hypothesis = May or May not be true. Not certain. Maybe. Perhaps. I think so. Not sure.

goddidit has the same amount of evidence as this hypothesis. Right?

No. “Goddidit” has much more. "Goddidit" is certainly true.

Science is all about the gaps and trying to fill them.

They are doing a very poor job of it in Big Bang cosmology.

You're apparently just interested in making sure they stay gaps.

Filling the gaps is fine, but don’t fill them with rubbish.

Provide something besides 'goddidit', or get out of the thread.

“Goddidit” is the thread. Read the OP or get out of the thread.

Homework assignment: Read this: Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia has lied to many people many times before. Why don’t you do your own explaining?

 

[Doveaman]

That's assuming there's eternal life for humans.

Scientists assume, so why can't we?

 

[sandwiches]

Scientists assume, so why can't we?

Scientists don't assume we have eternal life.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

No. “Goddidit” has much more. "Goddidit" is certainly true.

Why is it certainly true?

Filling the gaps is fine, but don’t fill them with rubbish.

Says the theist who's arguing for God because there's no better explanation...

Wikipedia has lied to many people many times before. Why don’t you do your own explaining?

Perhaps his explanation is identical to Wikipedia's?

 

[Nostromo]

Scientists assume, so why can't we?

Proverbs 18:2 - A fool finds no pleasure in understanding, but delights in airing his own opinions.

 

[AintNoMonkey]

13.5 billion years of pathetic imaginary ideas and not science.

Attacking what you do not understand. Ignorance truely is bliss, I suppose.

Blind faith.

This is what is required of you in christianity, correct? So if blind faith is such an awful thing, why are you blindly faithful to christ? When you disparage a property inherant to your belief system in order to (unsuccessfully) criticize science, all you are doing is hurting your own case.

Hypothesis = May or May not be true. Not certain. Maybe. Perhaps. I think so. Not sure.

No, I didn't ask for your understanding of what a hypothesis is. I asked what it actually is, which is a proposed, testable explanation for observed phenomenon. Now you know what a hypothesis is! Now you can stop mangling its definition in a vain effort to make your case.

No. “Goddidit” has much more. "Goddidit" is certainly true.

Prove it emperically. Until then, they are on the same footing.

They are doing a very poor job of it in Big Bang cosmology.

It took over 100 years of geology before plate tectonics became a well-evidenced theory. Duration of investigation=/= quality of hypothesis.

Filling the gaps is fine, but don’t fill them with rubbish.

He said after peppering the thread with an untestable hypothesis.

“Goddidit” is the thread. Read the OP or get out of the thread.

The OP is questioning whether or not 'goddidit' is an acceptable explanation for anything. If it is, there would be evidence to the affirmative. you have yet to post any. Please do so now, if you have the ability.

Wikipedia has lied to many people many times before. Why don’t you do your own explaining?

Christian pastors have lied to many people (you among them) many times before. Why don't you start your own religion?

 

[BananaSlug]

What’s that saying again; “You can carry the horse to water...”?

No. At first you vehemently denied the Big Bang. Now you are saying God is responsible for the Big Bang. Why the sudden change of heart?

You first.

I just said we don't know what caused the Big Bang. We have evidence that it happened, but we do not know why.

But you can deny like the rest.

How am I denying by saying "We don't know"?

I agree.

So you agree there is a gap that only God can fill. No problem.

Obviously you have no idea what "God of the Gaps" means and I believe you misunderstood me.
It refers to the fact that in the past, any gap in scientific knowledge was filled with "Goddidit". As our knowledge increased due to greater scientific progress, those gaps began to close. Using "Goddidit" inserted into an area of scientific uncertainty will only make you look foolish when that hole is filled.

From what I recall, even Einstein was puzzled by the impossible “Bang”.

Mainly because he wanted to believe in an eternal universe without a beginning or end.

Show me some.

I would if I could. Scientists are still trying to figure out what it is. For all I know it could just be a property of "empty" space.

Show me in the science lab how Dark Energy moves stuff around so I don’t have to rely on faith in your words alone.

It is not observed in a lab. It is infered based on observations of space.

Just like the earth's revolution around the sun is infered. Just because we cannot make a laboratory experiment does not mean the phenomena does not exist. Are you going to make the argument that the earth does not revolve around the sun because we cannot make it happen in a lab?

"It is an embarrassment that the dominant forms of matter in the universe remain hypothetical." - Jim Peebles, Princeton University.

What is the original source for this quote? I have a hard time finding it online, except for plasma-cosmology sites. I want the original source.

Don’t you mean ‘just as scientific as Dark Energy’?

"Dark energy" is the best explanation we have for the phenomena we observe. We have no clue what is causing the effects we see but we know it is being caused by something. "Dark energy" is the name we gave it.


So can "God did it" be shown in a laboratory setting? Can you give me empirical scientific evidence that God did in fact "do it"? How does "God did it" actually explain anything?

Why is the sky blue? Goddidit.
How does photosynthesis work? Goddidit.
Why do we get sick? Goddidit.
How are rainbows made? Goddidit.

An explanation that can be used for any question explains nothing.

 

[Cabal]

If there was no time a space in the singularity, were did time and space come from?

Not what I said.

I said the time was zero, not that there was zero time.

And being a point like object doesn't mean it contains nothing or has the potential to create nothing.

How many years has it not been supported? And how many years will it continue to not be supported?

No idea. And you know what? It matters not one jot. In my field, Bose-Einstein Condensates were predicted 70 years before the technology existed to create them. Did we get tired after 50 years and arbitrarily chuck the idea? No.

So stop trying to poison the well with your myopic bias.

Since there is no empirical support for your hypothetical explanations then “God did it” should not be a problem.

No, it is a problem, because it is not a scientific explanation.

And all that hypothetical unconfirmed stuff is also science-of-the-gaps.

What, filling in the gaps in science with MORE SCIENCE? Ya think?

If it’s hypothetical then faith is required to make sense of it.

Uh, no. A scientific hypothesis is grounded in empiricism. Faith is not.