WILL SCIENCE DISPROVE GOD? [Spirituality & Religion]

@newjaninev2
“Science” has lost its direction. Sad after led by the nose from the science fiction writer hawking, that anyone has any differing opinion.

@Aliveshock Science doesn’t have a direction... it simply follows the evidence

@newjaninev2
Until it gets hit in the face with evidence except for Sir Roger Penrose who gets on his knees for a Nobel prize.
hawking got off easy for his bullshit.

@Aliveshock Do you have any specifics, or just vague allusions?

I’d be happy to discuss specifics with you, but I’m not really impressed by either character assassination or by nebulous references

@newjaninev2
Cut out your BS please. It is insufferable and you are one of the largest liars on SW, nothing personal of course.

@Aliveshock And in what way does that pertain to my comment?

...or is it there simply because it [i]doesn’t[/i] pertain to my comment, which you’d rather not address?

@newjaninev2
You don’t know shit about science and are a pretender. Now expand on that.

@Aliveshock No, I feel that perhaps I’ve frightened you, so I’ll leave you to calm down now

On the upside, it appears that my original point stands... Science doesn’t care one iota about unnecessary postulations, and wastes no time on them, we can (and should) drop the god postulation into the garbage bin immediately.

@newjaninev2
You are so good at writing fantasy for you to satisfy yourself. Too bad you don’t know anything without referring to some huge external article or a massive copy and paste.

@Aliveshock Whatever I offer here is written by me, unless it’s identified as a copy of someone else’s work, in which case the references are provided to give direct context to that quote.

I realise that won’t make much sense to you, but I mention it on the off-chance that someone else may be able to explain it.

As I said, perhaps you should take a while to calm yourself, and assuage your fear.

If there’s anything I’ve written that you’d like me to simplify for you, please point it out, and I’ll do my best to summarise it for your understanding.

Of course, it still appears that my original point stands... Science doesn’t care one iota about unnecessary postulations, and wastes no time on them, we can (and should) drop the god postulation into the garbage bin immediately.

@newjaninev2
Let it go girl.
You aren’t that bright but a poser.
I have seen you produce pure BS and hope no one would catch it, like the Guth “expansion theory” I never laughed so hard on your screw up,

Now own it !! 😉

@Aliveshock Frankly, you’re not making much (any?) sense.

Are you the man who (ages ago, I think it was) started going on about ‘Guth’ in one of my posts? At the time, I didn’t know why, and I still don’t.

Unfortunately, you seemed too afraid to explain your purpose in some sort of coherent detail.

Perhaps this time you could try? Really make an effort, and try

@Aliveshock Perhaps a good starting point would be some sort of (hopefully coherent) explanation around what 'Guth “expansion theory”' has to do with my point that as science doesn’t care one iota about unnecessary postulations, and wastes no time on them, we can (and should) drop the god postulation into the garbage bin immediately.

@newjaninev2
It was a good time laughing on your pretentious screw up.

@Aliveshock run along now, child

@newjaninev2
Seriously when you get your shit together we can debate but do your homework first so I don’t have to bust your fake shit out pumpkin.

@Aliveshock What was it you were hoping to debate? Because so far you’ve shown a strong reluctance to debate anything at all

Understandable

@newjaninev2
Please stop! You got me in tears now 😂
You don’t even know the names of the theories you believe in!

@Aliveshock So you would rather not debate anything, and you seem to have nothing of substance to say.

Have you had enough attention for now, or do you need to offer yet more vague allusions and tantrums?

@newjaninev2
You put a lot of words in people’s mouths.
Have you ever had the epiphany that people stay away from you because of that?
If you don’t respect others you seldom get respect back. It is a demonstration of your lack in social education.

@newjaninev2
[quote] Science doesn’t care one iota about unnecessary postulations, and wastes no time on them[/quote]
Well, in theory yes. But a lot of time is spent on multiverse, for example, which is by definition an unnecessary postulation because it is not 'useful to describe observation.' (Refer to Sabine Hossenfelder's comments.)
[youtube=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSua_PUyfM&ab_channel=SabineHossenfelder]
One of the (certainly not the only) reasons many physicists (eg, Alex Vilenken) lean towards multiverse theory is the observation that our universe is 'finely tuned' (not my words) for life and mind, and the odds for this appear remarkably slim, mind-numbingly so according to some of the most esteemed physicists in the world like Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind, etc. The conclusion that it's one of the reasons for many comes from the mouths of a number of physicists. For similar reasons, many other scientists and physicists believe in God or similar (Pew research). I'm not at all against the multi-verse idea, by the way. It's a reasonable postulation, although there is no evidence at all. I also find God a reasonable postulation.

@Abstraction The multiverse postulation is potentially explanatory and productive. The god postulation is neither, and accordingly, it is unnecessary

The universe is not finely-tuned with our life and our mind as a goal. Given abiogenesis, [i]any[/i] life would be finely-tuned for the universe in which it found itself, much as water would find any container finely-tuned for its shape.

Of course many scientists are theists. Given the high percentage of theists in the general population, why would we expect anything else?

@newjaninev2
Scratching quite a bit to justify your multiverse? Show your CMB!
It is just an unsupported expansion of Guth’s Inflation theory.

@Aliveshock Read more carefully. I haven’t advocated the multiverse or anything like it. I have pointed out that the [i]postulation[/i] is potentially explanatory and productive

Unlike postulations around magical entities, for example

You seem to have a preoccupation with Guth... why is that? Is it something about him personally?

@newjaninev2
Sorry this upsets you.
I just can’t help bringing up the “Expansion 😂 theory that you support.
I am sure it hurts when you have no clue what you are talking about Patzer.
There are some good online courses on the internet, maybe tRy coursera.org so you can join in conversations and pretend you can keep up with everyone else. 😏