Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know why it would be ironic for me but it is not my position that a purely empirical naturalistic universe needs to be explained only by that which can be shown scientifically.
That is not what you said before.
"It also uses hypothetical unknown particles that can not be detected and probably won't ever be. "--Oncedeceived
You are rejecting an idea because it requires "unknown particles" that can't be detected. You are the one saying that you require evidence, all the while holding onto religious beliefs that have no evidence. This is called irony, and a very strong case of projection.
No, I am not rejecting it on this at all. My point is that you and others claim that if you can't provide evidence for something you believe then it is unfalsifiable and thus not scientifically valid.
Then comes the second part of the irony. Krauss offers evidence and falsifiable models for what he claims. You don't.
That is untrue.
He uses the hypothesis of unknown and undetectable particles.
I think this is a fairly valid statement especially when the term "provisionally" is stuck in.No, I am not rejecting it on this at all. My point is that you and others claim that if you can't provide evidence for something you believe then it is unfalsifiable and thus not scientifically valid.
So you give me a link to his book about the universe from nothing which is not what we were just discussing as we were discussing his theory for the fine tuning and the cosmological constant.
Krauss has laid out a lot of evidence for the expansion of the universe from "nothing" (which is really "something", but that is a discussion for another time). You also mentioned unknown particles that can not be detected. What are these particles?
Krauss having a lot of evidence is a point for debate for sure.
Neutrinos. This with undetected energy fields too.
Physicists are actually pretty punctual on finding those sorts of particles in recent years.
I don't know what you mean by punctual but if you mean that they have been pretty accurate in their predictions I would have to agree; however, in this case there is no way to ever be able to detect them. With the Higgs bosen they predicted and they knew that they could in theory at least confirm it existed but not so in this case.
Who knows, perhaps in the future that will change. Heck, we used to think electrons were stuck in the nucleus, and there are still people around who were taught that model. Atoms are weird.
Well I suppose that there might be some future technology that might somehow do so but that doesn't change the fact that they are undetectable currently. Speculation is really not empirical objective evidence either.
Well I suppose that there might be some future technology that might somehow do so but that doesn't change the fact that they are undetectable currently. Speculation is really not empirical objective evidence either.
Just as you speculate, when you claim; appearance of design supports design.
Welcome to physics. I say this way more often than I should.
But we do know what we know and can confirm.
No, that would be the same if I claimed actual design.
Krauss having a lot of evidence is a point for debate for sure.
Neutrinos. This with undetected energy fields too.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?