JackC

If you haven't used something in the last year or two, the chances are you don't really need it. Some people are obviously quite happy to cart a shed load of stuff around that they don't use. Personally I can't be arsed which is why I don't carry a canoe around with me either.

WTF? That's my point! You just said you need to accept first, before you get the benefits. That's a placebo. It doesn't matter if you call it belief or acceptance or great aunt Maud, it's the same bloody thing and all you're doing is begging the question (aka circular reasoning or petitio principii). I can actually imagine Maybe my point was too subtle for you. Romeo and Juliet are fictional. Their love never existed. Just as you can imagine their love, you can imagine gods love too. It may make you feel warm and fuzzy and I'm happy for you, but that does not mean it's real.

That's convenient. You know God would get a lot more converts if he did pull the odd miracle. But then again this whole "how dare you want proof" thing is a complete necessity for any fantasy to graduate to a religion. Begging the question again I see. A prior belief that X=true only then resulting in the benefit of X=true is the very definition of placebo. If it were real you wouldn't need to accept it first, it would just work. Romeo loved Juliet more than you could ever imagine.

Well I disagree, just because you can't do much by way of testing doesn't mean that the idea wasn't a reasonable starting point. Anyway, I think you can test some aspects of god's alleged properties. Answering prayers for instance, you could test that. But if you want to relegate god from "hypothesis" to "idea", I wont object. Yup, that's what I said. More or less. Well, Scientific Laws are descriptions of a phenomonon whereas Scientific Theories are explainations of why that phenomemon happens. With that definition, a theory can never become a law and a law can never have been a theory. Take Stefan-Boltzmann Law for instance. P~T^4 doesn't tell you a damn thing about why blackbodies emit radiation proportional to the fourth power of temperature just that they do. To find out why, you need Quantum Theory

Nowhere in the definition of hypothesis does it say the proposal actually has to be testable, merely that it needs more testing before it can be elevated to the lofty status of theory. That's why string theory is controversially named, it's actually a hypothesis in as much as it hasn't been and probably can't be tested. God may be an untestable hypothesis, but it is still a hypothesis. Here are some more scientific laws: The law of thermodynamics Hook's law of elasticity. The ideal gas law The law of conservation of energy Conservation of momentum Coulombs law. Kirchoff's circuit laws Keplers law of planetary motion Planck's law of blackbody radiation The speed of light is a constant Stefan-Boltzman law I'm not making this up, they're actually called laws. A scientific law is a description of an observed phenomenon. Kepler's Laws of Planetary Motion for example describe the motions of planets but they do not explain why planets behave that way. Gravity is a law although General Relativity which explains gravity is a theory.

Perhaps you should take you own advice? Hypothesis: A tentative proposal made to explain certain observations or facts that requires further investigation to be verified. Theory: A comprehensive explanation of a given set of data that has been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experimentation and has gained general acceptance within the scientific community but has not yet been decisively proven. Scientific law: A natural phenomenon that has been proven to occur invariably whenever certain conditions are met. A formal statement describing such a phenomenon and the conditions under which it occurs. Axiom: a proposition that is not susceptible of proof or disproof; its truth is assumed to be self-evident "Billvon is a duck" is a hypothesis General Relativity is a theory Gravity is a law x=x is an axiom God is not self evident, therefore it is not an axiom. God has not been proven, therefore it is not a law. God has not been repeatedly confirmed by observation and experiment, therefore it is not a theory. God is a hypothesis.

Bad choice of analogy, counselor. www.cut-the-knot.org/triangle/pythpar/AnglesInTriangle.shtml Yeah, it looks like it. But, does my thought process pass muster? I'm not convinced you're comparing like with like. The only real axiom in science is that the universe exists and we can interact with it and measure aspects of it. How do we know that we are not figments of some computer simulation? Answer: we don't. In some ways, it is irrellevant if the axiom that the universe exists and we are part of it is true or not. All we know is our perspective within the universe, if that perspective is wrong, we may never know. Even if it is not true, it wouldn't make much difference to how we learn about our surroundings, we have no choice but to live within that axiom. Euclidean geometry is then only a physical theory within that axiom. Even though it is not totally accurate as Einstein showed, it is extremely useful on non-relativistic scales. That axiom is altered slightly by "spiritual" people. They suggest that the universe (defined as all that exists) is not all that exists. There is something outside of the universe that may be able to interact with humans (ie part of the universe) in some way but is otherwise undetectable by even the most sophisticated scientific equipment. Religion then suggests that this extra-universal "thing" is the creator of all things (conveniently ignoring the infinite regress) and builds on this hypothesis even though it has no empirical justification, makes no testable predictions and fails to explain any physical phenomenon. Religious or not, just about everyone accepts the same axiom that the universe exists and we are part of it. But instead of then relying on empirical observation and self correcting re-examination of the facts within that axiom, the religious then extend that axiom from necessary to unnecessary without justification and then, to varing extents, believe the mythology of a bunch of bronze age nomads. At least thats the way I see it.

I don't think you mean that.

You may be right but I think Dawkins has a point. A persons religious views have somehow managed to command an undue amount of respect, to the point that even mildly difficult questions result in resentment and even violence. This level of respect is most certainly not warranted and I think there is a good argument for not showing people respect they do not deserve. You can't reason with someones faith, it's immune to logic, evidence and every other method you might have to try to get past that god shaped brain blockage. Dawkins method of proverbially bashing people over the head with an iron bar might not work, bet then fuck all else does cos they just ain't listening anyway.

If that's what they had done, then it would be misrepresentation, but that's not what they've done. The misrepresentation is you saying that's all they've done.

It's not the fact that people disagree with the theory that worries me, it's the fact that they intentionally misrepresent it. I really wish these people would criticise it for what it actually is. The intellectual dishonesty of the ID crowd is infuriating.

I think the current evolutionary theory is doing fine. Perhaps it is your understanding of it that requires modification?

And yet godidit is completely believable. You guys crack me up.

I'm not trying to be obtuse (honest). For a scientist, it is a legitimate question. How come you don't care about this but do care about loving enemies? Yes. I'm a physicist. That stuff is my career. I doubt it, I'm not that smart (or lucky).

Really!?! Are you sure you understood the question? I'm pretty sure there's a Nobel Prize waiting for you if you can explain it.

As far as I know, you don't. But then if you don't assign something to an unfathomable god, what use is god?

I think I could ask you the same question.

Right, so after all that it is possible to know god, at least partially (arrogance notwithstanding). So what was your point again?

The ultimate in cop outs. How can you possibly be satisfied with this big god shaped block in your understanding of the world? Imagine just one second that there was a God. How could you be so arrogant to know Him? Isn't that the whole point of religion, to know god? So we're in agreement then, religion is futile. My point is a bit more subtle perhaps. You say you can't understand god's ways (whatever they are). Now whatever event you assign to god's mysterious ways, there's no point in wondering about because it's god's will and we can't possibly understand it. Therefore, faith in god's will stops you enquiring about the world. And all because of the whole "god exists and you can't tell me different" mental road block. It's tragic.

The ultimate in cop outs. How can you possibly be satisfied with this big god shaped block in your understanding of the world?

"Life" in a general sense has no purpose other than to perpetuate life. Human life can have whatever purpose you assign to it. It's called being responsible for your own actions. The purpose of my life at the moment is to crack Malmsteen's Far Beyond the Sun in Eb. huh? I'd probably wonder if I'd crashed the car again. Other than that, it's my life so it's my responsibility to sort it out. Change is inevitable. Hope is not necessary. Coffee helps. Also chocolate. Man you ask some weird questions.

Nope. I'm with Ernest Rutherford ~ "All science is either physics or stamp collecting".

So crazy depends on the society you find yourself in. Whodathunkit. Psychology ain't no science then, it's just a belief system as arbitrary as the next.

Well Steve, I can't say I understand where you're coming from because the whole concept is completely alien to me, but for what it's worth, I'd buy you a beer any day.

Well, I'll be dipped in dog do. What about any other voice? Is god a special case? If so why?