Fine Tuning

[TagliatelliMonster]

That's actually not true from the basic philosophical underpinning that makes all of what you say quite problematic

No. It's exactly like I said it is.
Science has no need for faith, because it deals with evidence.
Scientific theories are not "believed". They are provisionally accepted as the best current explanation, with the acknowledgement that future data/discoveries/observations/etc might necessitate the need to either alter or replace the model of explanation.

Next to that, science is very results based.
For example, we can be pretty confident that atomic theory is rather accurate, because nukes explode. If the theory would be wrong, and we would thus not understand correctly/accurately how atoms work, then nukes would not explode.

The difference between science and religion is in methodology

Science IS a methodology.
Religion is a system of beliefs.

Religions generally limit the access to the first-hand experience, but plenty of sciences do the very same thing...

No, they do not.

so you are left in the dry believing whatever you are being told is independently verified

I just explained to you how scientific models are not "believed", but rather "provisionally accepted".

So, let's be a bit more honest on this point.

Indeed, let's!!

There's an obvious difference between science and religion, but for most people there isn't... unless all of them rushing to the labs and conducting QM experiments. But, that's not the case. What most people understand about science is a second-hand knowledge that they trust is correct based on the dots they connect about data.

If quantum mechanics is wrong, your pc wouldn't work.

In such, their methods differ from religious people in that there's more available data to connect those dots.

You are completely ignoring practical applications of scientific theories.

QM = modern day computers
Atomic Theory = nukes, nuclear power stations,...
Relativity = GPS
Germ theory of desease = medicine
etc

No faith required.
No "just believe" required.

 

[devolved]

I just explained to you how scientific models are not "believed", but rather "provisionally accepted".

You fundging with semantics of meaning. What is the semantic difference between belief and "provisional acceptance". That's what belief is. If all you do in science is "provisionally accept", then YOUR PERSONAL experience of science is that of belief.

You may say that SCIENCE is not about believe, but we are talking about subjective perception of individuals here. How do you personally know that electrons exist. All you have is Maxwell's claims (with historical derivative progression of that model) that was built into a mathematical model with some ratiometric approach to reality of that model. But how do YOU know? You say you don't believe. Then how do you know that individual electrons exist. Did you ever observe it? I doubt it.

So, you are experiencing science subjectively through the claims of the original authors and "provisionally accepting" their views and calling that different from belief ?

 

[devolved]

You are completely ignoring practical applications of scientific theories.

QM = modern day computers
Atomic Theory = nukes, nuclear power stations,...
Relativity = GPS
Germ theory of desease = medicine
etc

No faith required.
No "just believe" required.

No. I'm not ignoring anything, because you are talking about different semantic concepts here.

There's a reality of practical application of any given model. And there's a model itself that explains the reality of any subject matter.

For example, me simply re-labling the gravity to a work of myriads of invisible fairies wouldn't change the measurable ratios that we do observe and measure. I can build all sorts of wonderful models, and as long as the measurable ratios match... then models make no difference when it comes to the practical applications. If these models are then accepted based on math matching the experimental data, then model itself is not of much relevance. It can be wrong, but that's the only access we have to the reality... via modeling it in our brain, because that's how we perceive ANYTHING. Is electron a single particle? We don't know for sure. There's a certain level of confidence in that belief, supported by certain level of evidence that drives that model... but any honest sceintist that has any degree of education in philosophy of science will tell you that it's still a belief that a model is correct.

If you've never observed electron, and all you have is an electron-centric model of reality that's presented to you by the institutions of higher learning... and you are solely relying on ratio-based functional interpretation of reality... how do YOU know that the model is correct? You don't.

All of this "I don't believe but I do science" talk is extremely misleading and dishonest in this context. The only thing that you do know is THAT some things work when you press a button, etc. The "under-the-hood" mechanics of this reality is still a mystery to any thinking scientist.

For you, a non-scientist, to come out and say that you are not merely believing that QM is the model... but it's a "provisional knowledge", which somehow is different from "belief" or "faith"... is dishonest. You are merely re-labeling semantics to create "sanctioned" categories of belief.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You fundging with semantics of meaning. What is the semantic difference between belief and "provisional acceptance". That's what belief is. If all you do in science is "provisionally accept", then YOUR PERSONAL experience of science is that of belief.

No, they are not the same thing. Specifically not when comparing it to religious belief.
Because, may I remind you, that you are contrasting "believing scientific models" with "believing religious claims".

These kinds of "beliefs" are not comparable.
Yes, in every day language, I'ld probably say "i believe in evolution theory".
But I will be meaning something very different as opposed to a theist who says "i believe god exists".

It is important that the difference between these "beliefs" is properly understood.

The theist belief means "it is the truth and nothing but the truth".
While the scientific belief means "provisional acceptance as the best explanation currently available"

And, off course, one is faith-based while the other is evidence-based.

Once more: not the same thing.

You may say that SCIENCE is not about believe, but we are talking about subjective perception of individuals here. How do you personally know that electrons exist.

Because it is fundamental in chemistry, physics and the practical application thereof.
Without electrons, your monitor screen would stay black.

All you have is Maxwell's claims (with historical derivative progression of that model) that was built into a mathematical model with some ratiometric approach to reality of that model. But how do YOU know?

Again: practical application.
Scientific models make predictions.
It is through these predictions that we are able to develop technology.

You say you don't believe. Then how do you know that individual electrons exist. Did you ever observe it? I doubt it.

I observe its effects and practical application in technology.
Next to that, NOTHING stops you from picking up a science book and studying it for yourself. Unlike in religions, the source of the information and the data is available to all - not just the priviliged few who claim to have received some kind of unverifiable "revelation" that people should just believe.

So, you are experiencing science subjectively through the claims of the original authors and "provisionally accepting" their views and calling that different from belief ?

Nope. I objectively observe the practical application of the theoretical models.

Nukes explode.
Planes fly.
PC's boot.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No. I'm not ignoring anything, because you are talking about different semantic concepts here.

No. It's just science.

Theoretical models provide you with a testable understanding of a specific phenomena. That model makes predictions and thus can be used to develop technology.

If the model is wrong, the technology won't work.

ie...
If relativity is wrong, GPS wouldn't work (or it's atomic clocks wouldn't need to run slightly slower as those on earth in order to accurately pinpoint someone's location).
If atomic theory is wrong, nukes wouldn't explode.
If aerodynamics was wrong, planes wouldn't fly.

Etc

There's a reality of practical application of any given model.

No, there isn't. Only accurate models will have practical applications (that actually work, off course).

For example, me simply re-labling the gravity to a work of myriads of invisible fairies wouldn't change the measurable ratios that we do observe and measure.

Using another name for the fact/force of gravity, indeed wouldn't change anything.
The theory behind it however, that's another story.

If you replace the theory of gravity by invisible fairies, then that model will no longer provide a proper explanation for black holes, the curving of space-time, gravitational lensing, etc.

I can build all sorts of wonderful models, and as long as the measurable ratios match... then models make no difference when it comes to the practical applications. If these models are then accepted based on math matching the experimental data, then model itself is not of much relevance. It can be wrong, but that's the only access we have to the reality... via modeling it in our brain, because that's how we perceive ANYTHING. Is electron a single particle? We don't know for sure. There's a certain level of confidence in that belief, supported by certain level of evidence that drives that model... but any honest sceintist that has any degree of education in philosophy of science will tell you that it's still a belief that a model is correct.

I challenge you to replace Relativity with another model, and then use that new model to develop a GPS system.

If you've never observed electron, and all you have is an electron-centric model of reality that's presented to you by the institutions of higher learning... and you are solely relying on ratio-based functional interpretation of reality... how do YOU know that the model is correct? You don't.

Once more, electrons are fundamental in chemistry, physics and technology.

All of this "I don't believe but I do science" talk is extremely misleading and dishonest in this context. The only thing that you do know is THAT some things work when you press a button, etc. The "under-the-hood" mechanics of this reality is still a mystery to any thinking scientist.

Right, right.... so computer builders really have no clue what they are doing, and they are themselves completely baffled by the fact that a PC actually works.

For crying out loud..............................

For you, a non-scientist, to come out and say that you are not merely believing that QM is the model... but it's a "provisional knowledge", which somehow is different from "belief" or "faith"... is dishonest. You are merely re-labeling semantics to create "sanctioned" categories of belief.

Again, no.

It IS provisional knowledge because it is a model that explains the data currently available. New data could expose new things or invalidate others, which would necessitate changing the model.


What is dishonest though, is your attempt at trying to say that acceptance of well-established science is the same as having a religious belief.

It's ridiculous.

For the upteenth time: if atomic theory were wrong, nukes would not explode.

It really is that simple.

 

[devolved]

Yes, in every day language, I'ld probably say "i believe in evolution theory".
But I will be meaning something very different as opposed to a theist who says "i believe god exists".

When you break down semantics in terms of how our brain works... it's not.


The brain of a believer and your brain isn't that much structurally different. The only thing that varies are the solidified pathways between neurons that result in output Y when presented with input X. That's what a belief is on the level of the brain. Our perception of our reality is derived from myriads of neurons driving the probabilistic "calculation" of what likely is, and what likely isn't.

When a theist says that "I believe in God" they are basing it on some line of evidence. Some is first-hand experience or perceived experience, but largely it's based on claimed experience of other people. It can be right. It can be wrong. But the perceived reality falls in line with their current model of reality, which is derived from current structural make up of their brain.

When you say "I believe in evolution theory", you are saying so precisely because you likewise making a claim largely pointing to experience that you are personally lacking. You are making a probability guess, which is how our brains work at the core level of our being.

That's what science is, and religion is a rudimentary form of science that humanity began with. It's our first take at science. It's not something "different". There's plenty of pragmatic application in religion that's viable in psychology, for example. Simply because something "works" doesn't mean that the proposed explanation as to how it works IS the correct one.

And that's where you fudge the semantics and make up categories. I don't have a problem with saying "This method is better with figuring out which belief is likely true". I have a problem with saying "I don't need to believe". That's just dishonest.

Once more: not the same thing.

In terms of neurophysiology.... these are the same thing. You are trying to reify something that shouldn't be reified to make a point that can't be defended. You believe. You method may be better and more reliable, but you still largely depend on belief.

Again: practical application.
Scientific models make predictions.
It is through these predictions that we are able to develop technology.

You are talking about method. It doesn't change the underlying reality that both methods largely rely on assumptions... which are a form of belief.

Your are making an almost tautological claim that your belief is different from their belief. Of course it is . I would get it if you are making a "more reliable method" claim. But you were making a "I don't need to believe" claim, which is not true.

Nope. I objectively observe the practical application of the theoretical models.

Nukes explode.
Planes fly.
PC's boot.

Again, you are making a pragmatic claim. If I really begin asking you as to why these things work the way these do, all you are left with is referencing other people's work and claiming that it works. It's not much different than an AA person claiming that God saved them from alcoholism.

You are making the same type of pragmatic claim.

 

[miknik5]

The origins of the universe are unknown.


You may present your argument from ignorance know.

The origin of the universe is unknown?

I thought..

Hmmm?

 

[Peter1000]

No need to apologize. By all means, be a smart ass. But it's generally a good idea to be correct if you choose to take that path. Your definition of hypothesize puts your foot squarely in your mouth.

Aside from that, use of "coulda woulda shoulda" terms is just honesty because we don't actually know and we are just providing a testable idea. By contrast, I don't assert to know that I will rule a planet with my wife after I die.

Your definition of hypothesis to theory to fact/law is a disservice to you and all lay people.

You have sifted and boiled down the Mormon position to 'ruling a planet with my wife after I die.'

This is true statement, if you overcome the wickedness of this world. But ,more fully, we are joint-heirs with Jesus Christ in all that the Father has. These are some of the things that the Father has:"
1) He is the Creator God and has created billions of spirit/flesh/bone children.
He is out God and He gives commandments that he know will make them the most happy and full of joy, rather than ruling over them.
Because He does not rule over us, He gives us a choice to follow Him and become like Him or not. He gives us the right to reject Him and go our own way without Him. He does constantly warn us that any way that does not include Him, will be a very unhappy and unfulfillig way. I want to be a Creator.

2) He is all knowing, which means He is omniscience. He knows all science, which means he can bring about a universe with the elements finely tuned to bring forth life. I want to be omniscience like Him.

3) He is highly mobile. We are not sure how He does it, but He is able to move around the universe with little trouble. I want that ability.

4) As powerful a Man as He is, He is also the most humble and loving Man in the universe. I want those qualities.

5) He is omnipotent, omnisceince, and omnipresent. But He also has great wisdom in terms of handling this great power. I want His kind of wisdom.

I could go on, but I hope you get my point.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Your definition of hypothesis to theory to fact/law is a disservice to you and all lay people.

If you are suggesting that theories graduate to the status of law then you are even more lost than originally perceived.

You have sifted and boiled down the Mormon position to 'ruling a planet with my wife after I die.'

Sorry, I meant to say "wives."

This is true statement, if you overcome the wickedness of this world. But ,more fully, we are joint-heirs with Jesus Christ in all that the Father has. These are some of the things that the Father has:"
1) He is the Creator God and has created billions of spirit/flesh/bone children.
He is out God and He gives commandments that he know will make them the most happy and full of joy, rather than ruling over them.
Because He does not rule over us, He gives us a choice to follow Him and become like Him or not. He gives us the right to reject Him and go our own way without Him. He does constantly warn us that any way that does not include Him, will be a very unhappy and unfulfillig way. I want to be a Creator.

So... ruling a planet with your wives is not enough? You want to be a creator?

2) He is all knowing, which means He is omniscience. He knows all science, which means he can bring about a universe with the elements finely tuned to bring forth life. I want to be omniscience like Him.

God doesn't know if there exists a set X such that |N|<|X|<|R|.

3) He is highly mobile. We are not sure how He does it, but He is able to move around the universe with little trouble. I want that ability.

I choose the powers of umm... let's see... I'll take Wolverine's regeneration and metallic skeleton, Professor X's brain, and Magneto's power over metal. Incidentally, this will give me the ability to fly.

4) As powerful a Man as He is, He is also the most humble and loving Man in the universe. I want those qualities.

Most humble? He wrote a huge book about himself and demands to be worshiped.

5) He is omnipotent, omnisceince, and omnipresent. But He also has great wisdom in terms of handling this great power. I want His kind of wisdom.

How does he move if he is omnipresent? If he is omniscient, have him describe the set X to you so you can wow all of us.

If he is omnipotent, have him tell me hello.

I could go on, but I hope you get my point.

Do go on, but I think my Wolverine-Professor X-Magneto amalgamation wins.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

If you are suggesting that theories graduate to the status of law then you are even more lost than originally perceived.



Sorry, I meant to say "wives."



So... ruling a planet with your wives is not enough? You want to be a creator?



God doesn't know if there exists a set X such that |N|<|X|<|R|.



I choose the powers of umm... let's see... I'll take Wolverine's regeneration and metallic skeleton, Professor X's brain, and Magneto's power over metal. Incidentally, this will give me the ability to fly.



Most humble? He wrote a huge book about himself and demands to be worshiped.



How does he move if he is omnipresent? If he is omniscient, have him describe the set X to you so you can wow all of us.

If he is omnipotent, have him tell me hello.



Do go on, but I think my Wolverine-Professor X-Magneto amalgamation wins.

So, in essence, you're amalgamation is "Rogue." How fitting for you NH.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The origin of the universe is unknown?

I thought..

Hmmm?

Yes, the origins of the universe are currently unknown.

Contrary to popular belief, Big Bang theory isn't exactly a model of origins. It's more a model of development. Our knowledge of physics breaks down at T = 0.

Our current knowledge basically starts at Planck Time. Which would be the very first "moment" of existance of the space-time continuum. So the universe already exists at that point.

We don't know what kickstarted the big bang or what its true nature is. ie: we have no model of origins.

As far as I have understood it, we likely require a "unified field theory" to marry classical physics with quantum physics, in order to be able to work it out.

"before" planck time, classical physics and quantum physics clashes, which breaks down physics as we know it entirely.

This is the current frontier of our scientific knowledge.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, the origins of the universe are currently unknown.

Contrary to popular belief, Big Bang theory isn't exactly a model of origins. It's more a model of development. Our knowledge of physics breaks down at T = 0.

Our current knowledge basically starts at Planck Time. Which would be the very first "moment" of existance of the space-time continuum. So the universe already exists at that point.

We don't know what kickstarted the big bang or what its true nature is. ie: we have no model of origins.

As far as I have understood it, we likely require a "unified field theory" to marry classical physics with quantum physics, in order to be able to work it out.

"before" planck time, classical physics and quantum physics clashes, which breaks down physics as we know it entirely.

This is the current frontier of our scientific knowledge.

My understanding differs:

Classical physics (Newton's contributions) are entirely wrong (but good approximations when v is nowhere near c) and were refined by Einstein.

Quantum mechanics is incompatible with Relativity, and for this reason we are unable to describe a singularity of any kind (whether black holes or the Big Bang). In other words, anything that involves an extremely small amount of space must invoke quantum mechanics while anything that involves an extremely large amount of mass must invoke Relativity. So singularities necessarily invoke two models which are incompatible, and thus our computer simulations of such events return absurd results seeing as how they only operate on the rules that we are inputting.

Theists would save us a lot of time by simply being honest about this instead of asserting that fine tuning is a thing. Fine tuning is just yet another theistic lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My understanding differs:

Classical physics (Newton's contributions) are entirely wrong (but good approximations when v is nowhere near c) and were refined by Einstein.

Quantum mechanics is incompatible with Relativity, and for this reason we are unable to describe a singularity of any kind (whether black holes or the Big Bang). In other words, anything that involves an extremely small amount of space must invoke quantum mechanics while anything that involves an extremely large amount of mass must invoke Relativity. So singularities necessarily invoke two models which are incompatible, and thus our computer simulations of such events return absurd results seeing as how they only operate on the rules that we are inputting.

Yes, I agree. By "classical physics", I didn't mean "pre-Einstein physics".
Perhaps it was poor choice of words on my part.

I meant the "physics of the big" as opposed to the "physics of the small" (=quantum physics).

Theists would save us a lot of time by simply being honest about this instead of asserting that fine tuning is a thing. Fine tuning is just yet another theistic lie.

Fine tuning is a thing alright. But as usually with such arguments, it is taken from science and then misrepresented to make some religious point.

In science, it means "ha, look at that... constants... how about that... Why these specific values? I dunno... let's find out"

In religion, it means "ha! Tuner! yey!"

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, I agree. By "classical physics", I didn't mean "pre-Einstein physics".
Perhaps it was poor choice of words on my part.

Maybe, maybe not. This isn't my field. But my understanding is that Relativity and quantum mechanics developed almost simultaneously, so for one to be classical would be strange.

I meant the "physics of the big" as opposed to the "physics of the small" (=quantum physics).

But the physics of the Big Bang necessarily involves physics of the small because the entire universe was smaller than an electron.

Fine tuning is a thing alright. But as usually with such arguments, it is taken from science and then misrepresented to make some religious point.

In science, it means "ha, look at that... constants... how about that... Why these specific values? I dunno... let's find out"

In religion, it means "ha! Tuner! yey!"

The speed of light seems to be the thing upon which everything is founded. The universe will distort reality to accommodate the speed of light being constant. And yet this constant doesn't appear to be fine tuned. Vastly changing it would do what, exactly? We would see more stars or less if it goes up or down. So what? Would changing c necessarily change other fundamental constants or would they change proportionally so as to negate any apparent effects? Would E=mc^2 actually change, and if so, would it preclude the possibility of human life? If so, what about the possibility of all life?

Ultimately, the idea of fine tuning is currently untestable for the reasons stated in my previous post and therefore when theists assert fine tuning they are asserting something that is not evidently true, so they are lying or unwittingly parroting someone else's lie.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

But the physics of the Big Bang necessarily involves physics of the small because the entire universe was smaller than an electron.

Indeed, and we don't know how to merge the small with the big. The problem exactly

 

[Peter1000]

Yes, the origins of the universe are currently unknown.

Contrary to popular belief, Big Bang theory isn't exactly a model of origins. It's more a model of development. Our knowledge of physics breaks down at T = 0.

Our current knowledge basically starts at Planck Time. Which would be the very first "moment" of existance of the space-time continuum. So the universe already exists at that point.

We don't know what kickstarted the big bang or what its true nature is. ie: we have no model of origins.

As far as I have understood it, we likely require a "unified field theory" to marry classical physics with quantum physics, in order to be able to work it out.

"before" planck time, classical physics and quantum physics clashes, which breaks down physics as we know it entirely.

This is the current frontier of our scientific knowledge.

Is the Planck Epic testable and falsifiable?

 

[Peter1000]

="Nihilist Virus, post: 70840593, member: 381700"]If you are suggesting that theories graduate to the status of law then you are even more lost than originally perceived.

Was the Law of Gravity ever a theory?
Was the Law of Thermodynamics ever a theory?
Was Pascals Law ever a theory?
Was the Law of Motion ever a theory?
Was the Law of Evolution ever a theory? (oops, the theory of evolution has not become a law yet?)

Sorry, I meant to say "wives."

That's OK, you are new to the concept.

So... ruling a planet with your wives is not enough? You want to be a creator?

Where do you think the subjects that are to be ruled come from? From a Creator.

I choose the powers of umm... let's see... I'll take Wolverine's regeneration and metallic skeleton, Professor X's brain, and Magneto's power over metal. Incidentally, this will give me the ability to fly.

In a rather childish thinking process, you have mentioned some powers that are interesting. If you overcome this world and sit with Jesus in His throne, you will eventually become just like Him. An exalted Man that has God qualities. Your resurrected body will be indestructible and you will have the knowledge to go far beyond flying. So keep thinking you may think yourself into doing what is right.

Most humble? He wrote a huge book about himself and demands to be worshiped.

And why does God demand that we worship Him? For only 1 reason: So that we, His created children will be happy for all eternity. He is already happy, he wants only for His created children to be happy along with Him. If they worship Him, they will also do as He commands, and if they will do as He commands, they will find full happiness and joy in the eternal worlds.

How does he move if he is omnipresent? If he is omniscient, have him describe the set X to you so you can wow all of us.

His being omnipresent is not like what the Christian doctors describe being everywhere at once. It is that His influence is felt throughout the universe, while He is truly in 1 place at a time. Therefore He moves when he does, how He does and how fast He does are unknown to us at the present. JS said that when the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him, he saw a pillar of light descend, and within that pillar of light were the Father and the Son.

JS also said when he was visited by the angel Moroni, that Moroni was standing in a pillar of light and it was if a conduit had opened up right into heaven.

So, however they travel, they are quite mobile and probably travel on light. Can you say the speed of light? Are they subject to light speed, who knows? But very interesting.

I hope you were not counting on your X calculation when you decided God does not exist. Similar to: Could God create a rock that is so large that He could not lift it?
But here is the answer. God can create a rock that is so large that He personally could not lift it, however, with His superior knowledge of the universal forces, He can move the rock anywhere He wishes at any time.

If he is omnipotent, have him tell me hello.

It is not His omnipotence that gives Him the ability to tell you hello or not, it is your belief.

If you will believe and keep His commandments, He will say hello to you.
So see if I am right. It's worth the journey don't you think.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Was the Law of Gravity ever a theory?
Was the Law of Thermodynamics ever a theory?
Was Pascals Law ever a theory?
Was the Law of Motion ever a theory?
Was the Law of Evolution ever a theory? (oops, the theory of evolution has not become a law yet?)

Theories encompass laws. To be brutally honest, you need several years of education before we can have a meaningful discussion.

That's OK, you are new to the concept.



Where do you think the subjects that are to be ruled come from? From a Creator.



In a rather childish thinking process, you have mentioned some powers that are interesting. If you overcome this world and sit with Jesus in His throne, you will eventually become just like Him. An exalted Man that has God qualities. Your resurrected body will be indestructible and you will have the knowledge to go far beyond flying. So keep thinking you may think yourself into doing what is right.



And why does God demand that we worship Him? For only 1 reason: So that we, His created children will be happy for all eternity. He is already happy, he wants only for His created children to be happy along with Him. If they worship Him, they will also do as He commands, and if they will do as He commands, they will find full happiness and joy in the eternal worlds.



His being omnipresent is not like what the Christian doctors describe being everywhere at once. It is that His influence is felt throughout the universe, while He is truly in 1 place at a time. Therefore He moves when he does, how He does and how fast He does are unknown to us at the present. JS said that when the Father and Jesus Christ appeared to him, he saw a pillar of light descend, and within that pillar of light were the Father and the Son.

JS also said when he was visited by the angel Moroni, that Moroni was standing in a pillar of light and it was if a conduit had opened up right into heaven.

So, however they travel, they are quite mobile and probably travel on light. Can you say the speed of light? Are they subject to light speed, who knows? But very interesting.

I hope you were not counting on your X calculation when you decided God does not exist. Similar to: Could God create a rock that is so large that He could not lift it?
But here is the answer. God can create a rock that is so large that He personally could not lift it, however, with His superior knowledge of the universal forces, He can move the rock anywhere He wishes at any time.

The heavy rock argument is self-referencing. The continuum hypothesis is not. They are nothing alike, so I don't know what you think you're answering.

It is not His omnipotence that gives Him the ability to tell you hello or not, it is your belief.

If you will believe and keep His commandments, He will say hello to you.
So see if I am right. It's worth the journey don't you think.

Every year I believe my Lions will win the Super Bowl. Guess what happens?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is the Planck Epic testable and falsifiable?

It's not a hypothesis.

It's an inference from the data/math of big bang cosmology.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Was the Law of Gravity ever a theory?
Was the Law of Thermodynamics ever a theory?
Was Pascals Law ever a theory?
Was the Law of Motion ever a theory?

No.
Laws are descriptive. Generalised abstractions of sets of facts, if you will.
Theories are explanatory. Theories explain laws. They don't turn into laws.

Was the Law of Evolution ever a theory? (oops, the theory of evolution has not become a law yet?)

As said, theories explain laws. They don't turn into laws.