Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Wiccan_Child]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?"

 

[pgp_protector]

Tagging New Thread

 

[SkyWriting]

The topic started with this:

Wiccan_Child said:
Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?
It doesn't matter if it's an untestable one, but does it count as an explanation?
In that respect, is it a scientific hypothesis, albeit a woefully poor one?

 

[Nostromo]

You don't believe in supporting facts using the "opponents" preferred sources?

Nice of you to chip in and put words in my mouth, appreciate it.

What I was actually referring to is Doveaman's deep suspicion of science until a few hours ago when he appears with a great new idea, one that he appears to like simply because it reinforces his deep mistrust of 'established' science. To quote:

It's nothing but one mistake after another, and one cover up after another to keep the paying public in the dark.

I don't mind alternative sources, that's what science is all about. That's the bread and butter of science, it thrives on it.

The problem is that we have a website that does exactly what you accuse me of, being selective about the evidence it uses. Very few if any references to actual scientific papers supporting these ideas, the odd article pointing out the problems people are having with current hypotheses.

Can you find me a peer-reviewed journal article among all that stuff?

The conspiracy theorists among you will always mutter about the wool being pulled over our eyes, but you have to ask yourself, what would be the point? Why on Earth would people request funding for and spend countless hours on research which intentionally leads nowhere? Who would waste their career on something that they knew was wrong, and who would put up the money to fund such a thing and why, when they could be funding real research that would lead to new breakthroughs and eventually create a return on investment?

 

[Nostromo]

The topic started with this:

Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?
It doesn't matter if it's an untestable one, but does it count as an explanation?
In that respect, is it a scientific hypothesis, albeit a woefully poor one?

Testability is probably the most fundamental feature of a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Im just going to take the oppertunity to say. I was not supporting either of you two i was simply making an observation and posted it to see if people agreed with the observation or that i would be corrected. both would have helped my understanding of the two sides views.

 

[BananaSlug]

Doveaman, according to you, despite the evidence in support of Big Bang cosmology, you state that anomalous redshift objects falsify the entire theory.

• 3 Observational evidence
  • 3.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
  • 3.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
  • 3.3 Abundance of primordial elements
  • 3.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
  • 3.5 Other lines of evidence

So despite observational evidence that supports the mathematics, you claim that the theory is false due to anomalous redshift. If an entire theory can be discarded due to unexplained phenomena, does that mean a Plasma cosmology should be held to the same scrutiny? If we can find something that is unexplainable with Plasma cosmology then is the whole idea wrong? Am I correct in assuming this?

 

[Doveaman]

Can you find me a peer-reviewed journal article among all that stuff?

You don't trust in the Holy Bible about God but is asking me to trust in the Peer-Reviewed Bible on Cosmology. Is it God inspired like the Holy Bible is?

Well, if it's not, I don't trust it.

The conspiracy theorists among you will always mutter about the wool being pulled over our eyes, but you have to ask yourself, what would be the point? Why on Earth would people request funding for and spend countless hours on research which intentionally leads nowhere? Who would waste their career on something that they knew was wrong, and who would put up the money to fund such a thing and why,

The conspiracy theorists among you will always mutter about the wool being pulled over our eyes, but you have to ask yourself, what would be the point? Why on Earth would Creationists request funding for and spend countless hours on research which intentionally leads nowhere? Who would waste their career on something that they knew was wrong, and who would put up the money to fund such a thing and why

when they could be funding real research that would lead to new breakthroughs and eventually create a return on investment?

Yes, like Plasma Cosmology.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You don't trust in the Holy Bible about God but is asking me to trust in the Peer-Reviewed Bible on Cosmology. Is it God inspired like the Holy Bible is?

I'd go as far as to say that it's every bit as God inspired as the "Holy" Bible.

 

[Nostromo]

Is it God inspired like the Holy Bible is?

Well, if it's not, I don't trust it.

Don't talk rubbish. You have to live every day of your life trusting things written or said that aren't inspired by God.

Why on Earth would Creationists request funding for and spend countless hours on research which intentionally leads nowhere?

They wouldn't. If they knew they were wrong, they wouldn't waste their time on it so why do you accuse other people of doing that?

 

[Doveaman]

Im just going to take the oppertunity to say. I was not supporting either of you two i was simply making an observation and posted it to see if people agreed with the observation or that i would be corrected. both would have helped my understanding of the two sides views.

So what it boils down to. is a difference in mindset.
for a christian god is the answer, and there is no need to put any more thought into it.
for a critial thinker, there must be a mechanisme by which it works, just like everything else.

and they try to find that out from the christian who doesnt have a answer outside of god-did-it, which is enough for a christian but not enough for a critial thinker. hench the arguement becomes "you dodged the question" and "you didnt like my answer" both are more or less right from the proper perspective it would seem to me.

Perhaps, but Christians are critical thinkers too. But our critical thinking is beyond an Atheist' capacity to comprehend. We understand the "mechanism" by which God works because of our critical thinking, and it is this critical thinking that enables us to say with certainty that God did it.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Perhaps, but Christians are critical thinkers too. But our critical thinking is beyond an Atheist' capacity to comprehend. We understand the "mechanism" by which God works because of our critical thinking, and it is this critical thinking that enables us to say with certainty that God did it.

Yes i realized later i perhaps should have phrased it as "fundamentalists" since there are critical thinking christians. but there are no critical thinking fundamentalists <well they think critically of everything except their believes, but you get the idea>

Could you try to explain about this mechanisme and your critical thinking. i have an idea of what you mean with beyond atheist comprehension but in the interest of fully understanding your point of view could you elaborate on that aswell?

Keeping in mind your talking to a currently godless atheist

 

[Nathan Poe]

Perhaps, but Christians are critical thinkers too. But our critical thinking is beyond an Atheist' capacity to comprehend.

In the same way that fools couldn't see the Emperor's new clothes.

We understand the "mechanism" by which God works because of our critical thinking, and it is this critical thinking that enables us to say with certainty that God did it.

And the rest of us use critical thinking to recognize this statement as bluff and bluster, saying much; meaning nothing.

 

[Doveaman]

Don't talk rubbish. You have to live every day of your life trusting things written or said that aren't inspired by God.

I do?

Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct your paths. - Prov 3:5-6.

I understand what you are trying to say, but if I rely on God to guide me in what I read or hear, then I would say there is inspiration of God in there somewhere.

If they knew they were wrong, they wouldn't waste their time on it

This can also be said of Consensus Cosmology.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Perhaps, but Christians are critical thinkers too. But our critical thinking is beyond an Atheist' capacity to comprehend. We understand the "mechanism" by which God works because of our critical thinking, and it is this critical thinking that enables us to say with certainty that God did it.

You should, after all, you're god's chosen few.

 

[Doveaman]

Doveaman, according to you, despite the evidence in support of Big Bang cosmology, you state that anomalous redshift objects falsify the entire theory.

• 3 Observational evidence
  • 3.1 Hubble's law and the expansion of space
  • 3.2 Cosmic microwave background radiation
  • 3.3 Abundance of primordial elements
  • 3.4 Galactic evolution and distribution
  • 3.5 Other lines of evidence

So despite observational evidence that supports the mathematics, you claim that the theory is false due to anomalous redshift. If an entire theory can be discarded due to unexplained phenomena, does that mean a Plasma cosmology should be held to the same scrutiny? If we can find something that is unexplainable with Plasma cosmology then is the whole idea wrong? Am I correct in assuming this?

There would be no expansion without red-shift, there would be no Big Bang without expansion, and there would be no predictions without Big Bang.

Falsify the base (red-shift) and the house of cards come tumbling down.

Now, if you can falsify the base (electricity) of the Electric Universe theory, then that theory would come tumbling down, too.

Good luck.

 

[SkyWriting]

Why on Earth would people request funding for and spend countless hours on research which intentionally leads nowhere? Who would waste their career on something that they knew was wrong, and who would put up the money to fund such a thing and why, when they could be funding real research that would lead to new breakthroughs and eventually create a return on investment?

My mistake on the words I shoved in your mouth.

On this topic, you are clearly referring to...I mean...It brings to my mind:

$74,000,000 mil
$548,200

 

[sandwiches]

There would be no expansion without red-shift, there would be no Big Bang without expansion, and there would be no predictions without Big Bang.

Falsify the base (red-shift) and the house of cards come tumbling down.

Now, if you can falsify the base (electricity) of the Electric Universe theory, then that theory would come tumbling down, too.

Good luck.

He just told you what evidence supports the Big Bang and right then, you claim that, if red shift is disproved, there would be no Big Bang? LOL

Wow...

The evidence for the expansion of the universe and the Big Bang isn't just one thing, like you'd like to imagine. It's the consistency of observations and evidence including:
Abundance of Light elements,
Observable evolution of galaxies,
Universal homogeneity,
Age of stars,
Background radiation,
WMAP fluctuation data,
Time dilation in supernova brightness curves,
Thermal Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect,
Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect,
And yes, even Red Shift

All the evidence points to the Big Bang. If you can falsify Red Shift, publish your peer-reviewed paper. This would completely change our current cosmology and you'd be hugely famous and renowned. You'd be able to get just about any grant you wanted.

 

[SkyWriting]

Yes i realized later i perhaps should have phrased it as "fundamentalists" since there are critical thinking christians. but there are no critical thinking fundamentalists <well they think critically of everything except their believes, but you get the idea>

No. How is that?
Do you know that these people have split personalities or are you just projecting your own failings on other groups of people? I can't imagine how you think that you know that these people have two ways of looking at the world. One for faith and one for everything else.

I know for a fact that that's incorrect, so I wonder how you "know" so much about how they view the world. I really doubt you've been in a room of fundies. I'll be the first to admit, it's a room full of weird. But there is no lack of conviction in their professional lives different from the spiritual side. (To be fair to my weird fundie friends, I've debated a room full of "reasonable" nonbelievers and it was no less scary.)

You ASS-U-ME that people are not thinking critically about their faith. Wrong.

 

[sandwiches]

No. How is that?
Do you know that these people have split personalities or are you just projecting your own failings on other groups of people? I can't imagine how you think that you know that these people have two ways of looking at the world. One for faith and one for everything else.

I know for a fact that that's incorrect, so I wonder how you "know" so much about how they view the world. I really doubt you've been in a room of fundies. I'll be the first to admit, it's a room full of weird. But there is no lack of conviction in their professional lives different from the spiritual side. (To be fair to my weird fundie friends, I've debated a room full of "reasonable" nonbelievers and it was no less scary.)

You ASS-U-ME that people are not thinking critically about their faith. Wrong.

If your claim is that fundamentalists don't have different standards of evidence for different things in life, then you're patently wrong. You're a good example or a fundamentalist. Your incredulity demands rigorous and thorough evidence to support claims that go against your religious beliefs. And when some is found, you always find it lacking. Not only that, but you specifically have stated that you've already made up your mind regarding reality and the universe and will only believe and support evidence that supports your belief. So, yes. People definitely have double standards when it comes to standards of evidence. Like you, AV would also not believe anything, no matter how obvious, visible, tested, or examined that conflicted with his interpretation of the Bible.

Don't wonder so hard about how we know about people's views of life and the universe. Much of it posted in these forums, yourself included.