When discussing scientific view points, there is one equalizer that science relies on, evidence. Sure, there may be gaps in the evidence and some lean one way or the other, but that gets exposed eventually, because there are so many scientists gathering evidence. And I know, you don't feel they have certain things right and they are biased, I am fully aware of your opinion.
Ok, but as you can see with CDM, conflict between the 'evidence' and theory theory often arises, but it's subjectively ignored just like everyone else who engages in confirmation bias. The concept of evidence really doesn't apply to their *faith* in exotic forms of matter.
With God, no one can gather evidence to prove beyond a doubt that God does not exist.
How could I ever hope to "prove" that "space expansion" does not exist? I can't even get that far. Now add to that the concept that both 'inflation' and 'dark energy' are "causes" of this phenomenon, and you tell me how to falsify that huge metaphysical kludge?
I also can't prove that people were not abducted by aliens, so there are certain things that are driven harder by psychology compared to others.
IMO you're ignoring the fact that falsification and verification of any "God" theory entirely depends on the definition of "God" being used. Even concepts like 'soul' enjoy "mathematical models" that actually have been confirmed in the lab. That's *way* more than can or will ever be said for inflation or dark energy or space expansion claims in general.
Like I said, it comes down to the *physical* (or lack thereof) definition of God, and the "tests" you come up with in terms of the mathematical models. Your criticism doesn't actually apply to *all* concepts of God, and those very same criticism also apply to nearly *all* areas of theoretical physics.
http://www.christianforums.com/t7584137-74/#post64919132
Upvote
0