Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe instead of quoting and pasting articles out of context you should understand that what they discovered was merely another quark variant produced by the Higgs mechanism. What I meant by the eventual inability to test for new subatomic particles, was that we CANNOT test for anything smaller than quark variants or the Higgs vacuums associated with them.

You probably have never studied the scientific method. None of the contents of your citation even remotely corroborates your new bizarre conception of falsifiability.

You either can experiment them in the lab or seek observational support in falsifying the said hypothesis. As a theoretical physicist I have never ever heard of the notion of theoretical 'falsifiability.' I cannot even find it anywhere on the Web.

Ask your professor.

I will certainly ask my Ph.D supervisor but I doubt that it is any more than a product of your imagination.

ASPE referred to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
On this site is written: "For a statement to be questioned using observation, it needs to be at least theoretically possible that it can come into conflict with observation."

This site also mentions two meanings of falsifiability, also in annotation 1:
"Thus, the term falsifiability is sometimes synonymous to testability. Some statements, such as It will be raining here in one million years, are falsifiable in principle, but not in practice.[1]
[1] Popper, K. R. (1994). "Zwei Bedeutungen von Falsifizierbarkeit [Two meanings of falsifiability]". In Seiffert, H.; Radnitzky, G. Handlexikon der Wissenschaftstheorie (in German). München: Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag. pp. 82–85. ISBN 3-423-04586-8.

I'd opt for the practical falsifiability as primary

I "OP" for
A. Prayer
B. Meditation
C. Yoga
D. Arm wrestling.
E. All the above ( which I did this week)

I believe they all have scientific reality.

"If we can't laugh at ourselves, others will beat us to it."

Sorry this post makes non sense whatsoever .

We're gonna have to look at your medication ...

I've thought of meds, but doc thinks it would rob my creative side God gave me.
So I option for my post below verses the eloquent debate going on here at times.
M. C. have quipped that doing comedy is cheaper than psychotherapy for this righter.
(Of course they voiced my name)

I felt the heat before I saw the light.

since there's no news here on this tread, and it's raining outside, I'm bored; so excuse me for writing something here, whether it's nonsense or not
cheaper than medicine it indeed is

have been reading on a topic about "alternate orthodoxy". It has something to do with Franciscan Catholists. It is about that all creation is incarnation:
‘The incarnation of God did not happen in Bethlehem two thousand years ago. That is just when some of us started taking it seriously. The incarnation actually happened approximately 14.5 billion years ago with a moment we now call “The Big Bang”. That is when God actually decided to materialize and to expose who God is.
http://ruthvalerio.net/bibletheology/the-first-and-original-incarnation/
Reminds me of what Alan Watts is saying, that God materialized himself in this world. Maybe this is similar. There seems to be a bit of Christianity in it and a bit of Zen.
I like it, because here's a closer link between God and the world, at least it seems closer than in traditional religion.
Still wondering if there are some advantages here:
- don't have to wait very long for any historical emanation of God (second coming, Kingdom of God), anything special in this world is already an emanation from the divine itself
- makes the question of the theodicee less problematic: when there's evil happening, it happens at us but also at God himself
- don't have to ask why would God create the world or mankind (cause focus is on incarnation not creation);

I'm working on it, but still under construction:
http://louisseeksunderstanding.blogspot.nl/

Yes I believe God was here long before he let us know.

I read the Bible daily.
Today my wife and I worked on our yard. ( much bigger than 3 feet but I digress)

Before I knew God a blade of a bush was just a blade
After knowing God it was much more
Trimming one of our big bushes it was just another chore
After it was much more..



Me. My Wife
The Bush

How do you know that for certain; there might be a whole extra level of subatomic particles.
As long as the current 'smallest' level of base particles has several types, there is at least potentially a new sublevel, untill we find a level X where the difference between the players on that field is explained by a differing amount of the same particle at 'X-1'

We might find a whole new way of testing for strings, which does not involve particle accellerators, there is no telling what science will think of next.


I explained that, AspE did not mean that the hypothesis should be tested in theory, it means that you must be able to think of a way to practically test the idea, even though we can't do that *yet*

No, I do mean that if it can be tested, even if only in theory and not practically, it is still a valid theory.

Would you step in an airplane that is tested in theory only?
I recommend real world testing.

We are only talking about the difference between a scientific hypothesis and a pseudoscientific one.

In theory my lights should come on when I flip the switch.

Even I'm not sure where I was going with that one. Got distracted by a random noise.

just used mind control to switch on the light but failed
time to go to bed then