Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[AV1611VET]

By the by, is there anything you won't believe? (apart from science that is)

LOL --- if I didn't think you were Consol, I'd give you one of my three favorite replies:

1. Care to plod through over 1,084,000 posts to see what I believe when it comes to science?
2. There is very little science I actually disagree with.
3. Scientists are [one of] God's gifts to mankind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Care to plod through over 1,084,000 posts to see what I believe when it comes to science?

Considering that at least 90% of those posts are nothing but you counting, there's actually not much to plod through

 

[AV1611VET]

Considering that at least 90% of those posts are nothing but you counting, there's actually not much to plod through

And when you consider the other 10% is repetition of questions, repetition of answers, QVs, ad lib answers and a few miscellaneous posts, that leaves about .002% basic doctrine.

 

[Doveaman]

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?

Does 'dark matter/energy' 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?

 

[Doveaman]

Yes it is an explanation. No it is not a scientific hypothesis, because it is not testable.

What about 'dark matter/energy'?

 

[Split Rock]

What about 'dark matter/energy'?

Whoooooooooosh!

That was the sound of goalposts moving..

 

[Split Rock]

[*]There is very little science I actually disagree with.

Let's take a look:

1. Biology
2. Geology
3. Paleontology
4. Anthropology
5. Organic Chemistry
6. Physical Chemistry
7. Linguistics
8. Modern medicine
9. Astronomy
10. Cosmology

That looks like an awful lot of science that you disagree with...

 

[Doveaman]

Natural = the falsifiable

supernatural = the unfalsifiable

at least that's my take

I can't find any obvious problem with these definitions, so they're instantly my favourite .

If it can be demonstrated that the universe was formed by another source other than God then wouldn’t God be falsifiable? Unless you are convince there is no other source.

 

[Doveaman]

Whoooooooooosh!

That was the sound of goalposts moving..

I don't get it.

Whoooooooooosh can also be the sound of someone running away from the question.

 

[Doveaman]

It constitutes an explanation of the WHY, but not the HOW.

It also constitutes an explanation of WHO did it.

 

[Lord Emsworth]

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?

No, not at all. It means nothing much at all, and as such can obviously not explain anything at all. Goddidit, or if you wish, God created the universe/heavens&earth/life/younameit conveys what exactly.

I think it is rather an illusion of an explanation; something that only makes people think they had an answer to a question. Much in the same fashion that a pacifier creates the illusion of being fed in a baby.





([insincere interest]OTOH, if "God" does constitute a meaningful explanation for X, Y or Z, then I would like to hear it.[/insincere interest] )

 

[Nathan Poe]

And when you consider the other 10% is repetition of questions, repetition of answers, QVs, ad lib answers and a few miscellaneous posts, that leaves about .002% basic doctrine.

So, what you're saying is that 99.998% of what you post is either pointless counting, the same asked-and-answered questions asked again ad infinitum, you own opinions posted ad infinitum, posts of you quoting yourself, and stuff you make up rather than admit you don't know, and miscellaneous irrelevence?

Assuming that your "basic doctrine" is even remotely accurate, where's the incentive for anyone to plod through the rest?

 

[Tinker Grey]

So, what you're saying is that 99.998% of what you post is either pointless counting, the same asked-and-answered questions asked again ad infinitum, you own opinions posted ad infinitum, posts of you quoting yourself, and stuff you make up rather than admit you don't know, and miscellaneous irrelevence?

Assuming that your "basic doctrine" is even remotely accurate, where's the incentive for anyone to plod through the rest?

Perhaps you meant ad nauseum.

 

[hangback]

LOL --- if I didn't think you were Consol, I'd give you one of my three favorite replies:

You can believe what you like (which you obviously do)

1. Care to plod through over 1,084,000 posts to see what I believe when it comes to science?
2. There is very little science I actually disagree with.
3. Scientists are [one of] God's gifts to mankind.

1. 1,084,000 90% of which is you on the counting forum, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9,
(for people who don't believe that check it out)
2. That's why you keep saying 'Science can take a hike' is it?
3. Since when has spending years leaning how to do something been a gift? be it from a God or anyone?

AV1611VET your trolly has buckled wheels, you are a fraud, and not even a very good one, it's obvious you are a creationist because everything about you is a lie.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Perhaps you meant ad nauseum.

I was being polite -- relatively speaking.

 

[Split Rock]

I don't get it.

Whoooooooooosh can also be the sound of someone running away from the question.

How about sticking to the topic?

 

[Bushido216]

If it can be demonstrated that the universe was formed by another source other than God then wouldn’t God be falsifiable? Unless you are convince there is no other source.

No.

 

[AV1611VET]

Assuming that your "basic doctrine" is even remotely accurate...

You tell me if it's accurate, Nathan; instead of acting innocent.

Go ahead --- basic doctrine is ... well ... basic.

There's nothing hidden to the public; it's all in the storefront window for all to see.

What? Did I get a dispensation out of order? Or miss one? Or mislabel one?

Did I place one of God's natural attributes in a list of His moral attributes, or vice-versa?

When it comes to basic doctrine, you don't have to assume anything; you either know it, or you don't.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

 

[AV1611VET]

AV1611VET ... everything about you is a lie.

LOL --- now there you just did it again.

QV please: 101 .