Re: FYI: The world ends next Wednesday
No. It's not. It really isn't.
Wh... what? We're simulating the CONDITIONS, not the act itself. As I understand it, these conditions actually exist IN NATURE, and the primary reason for the LHC is so that we can know when and where things are going to occur, and put those giant ass detectors there to monitor it.
And the reason we're doing this is to discover what the hell happened. Here, watch:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aU-wFSqt0]YouTube - The Large Hadron Rap[/ame]
...it's a particle accelerator. Not a recursive universe machine.
And as Caspian pointed out, you're assuming that gods exist in the same way that toasters exist. Something you can touch, something measurable; and there's no reason to believe that. You're also assuming that the laws of physics would apply, which is actually pretty silly.
Do gods exist? No. Is there any good reason to believe gods exist? No. Does anything disprove gods? No.
Science shows people facts, religion shows them concepts. Facts might be all some people need to stop believing in invisible sky fairies. But the existence of facts does not disprove the concept. For example, we know that life has evolved over time. Evolution is fact. However, that does not disprove the concept that humans are a 'special creation', as there is no way to disprove that evolution was not guided in some way. See Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer -- specifically:
Science doesn't need to disprove gods. Science works on the principle that you come up with a concept, as religions do, and then test it to see if it's correct. For example, let's say that I think my ceiling is five feet from the lowest point to the highest point. I have a hypothesis, so I get a ladder and a bit of tape, and I measure the distance. This would either confirm or deny my idea. Rigor might need more controls; for example, using a level to make sure that the height does not increase from one end to another; or testing at various times throughout the day to account for any warping that might occur as a result of heating and cooling.
Visual aid the above paragraph:
Anyway, as I was saying, science doesn't need to disprove gods. Science doesn't work by disproving things. It works by proving things. If someone wants to say, scientifically speaking, that they believe in some god or gods, it is their job to prove that god. See Russel's Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, et al.
Originally posted by Bonez
View Post
Originally posted by Bonez
View Post
And the reason we're doing this is to discover what the hell happened. Here, watch:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6aU-wFSqt0]YouTube - The Large Hadron Rap[/ame]
Originally posted by Bonez
View Post
And as Caspian pointed out, you're assuming that gods exist in the same way that toasters exist. Something you can touch, something measurable; and there's no reason to believe that. You're also assuming that the laws of physics would apply, which is actually pretty silly.
Do gods exist? No. Is there any good reason to believe gods exist? No. Does anything disprove gods? No.
Science shows people facts, religion shows them concepts. Facts might be all some people need to stop believing in invisible sky fairies. But the existence of facts does not disprove the concept. For example, we know that life has evolved over time. Evolution is fact. However, that does not disprove the concept that humans are a 'special creation', as there is no way to disprove that evolution was not guided in some way. See Kent Hovind's $250,000 Offer -- specifically:
Originally posted by Talkorigins
Science doesn't need to disprove gods. Science works on the principle that you come up with a concept, as religions do, and then test it to see if it's correct. For example, let's say that I think my ceiling is five feet from the lowest point to the highest point. I have a hypothesis, so I get a ladder and a bit of tape, and I measure the distance. This would either confirm or deny my idea. Rigor might need more controls; for example, using a level to make sure that the height does not increase from one end to another; or testing at various times throughout the day to account for any warping that might occur as a result of heating and cooling.
Visual aid the above paragraph:
Anyway, as I was saying, science doesn't need to disprove gods. Science doesn't work by disproving things. It works by proving things. If someone wants to say, scientifically speaking, that they believe in some god or gods, it is their job to prove that god. See Russel's Teapot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Pink Unicorn, et al.
Comment