Why do Atheists Hate Religion?

[BADecker]

Religious nut? Coming from you? That's a new one.

I use religious logic. You don't even recognize that your logic is religious as well.

[organofcorti]

Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.

You mean like theory of gravity. LOL...

The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.

If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down.

This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".

Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law.

The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct.

Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc.

Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact.

Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind.

No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed.

I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall?

[BADecker]

Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.

You mean like theory of gravity. LOL...

The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.

If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down.

This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".

Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law.

The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct.

Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc.

Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact.

Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind.

No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed.

I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall?

You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another.

[Moloch]

Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.

You mean like theory of gravity. LOL...

The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.

If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down.

This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".

Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law.

The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct.

Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc.

Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact.

Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind.

No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed.

I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall?

You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another.

Gravitation is an observed natural phenomenon...

The only law of gravity is that objects with mass attract each other... even this "law" is subject to change as we discover exactly what gravity is and where it originates...

Everything else falls under The Theory of Gravity... Essentially, the what, where, when, why & how of gravity...

And, as previously stated, if some aspect is deemed incorrect, the theory will adapt to a better explanation of observed events using facts and evidence...

Science does not accept the Argument from Authority (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) of, "some guy wandering a desert 3000 years ago claimed God said so"

[BADecker]

Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.

You mean like theory of gravity. LOL...

The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.

If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down.

This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".

Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law.

The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct.

Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc.

Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact.

Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind.

No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed.

I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall?

You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another.

Gravitation is an observed natural phenomenon...

The only law of gravity is that objects with mass attract each other... even this "law" is subject to change as we discover exactly what gravity is and where it originates...

Everything else falls under The Theory of Gravity... Essentially, the what, where, when, why & how of gravity...

And, as previously stated, if some aspect is deemed incorrect, the theory will adapt to a better explanation of observed events using facts and evidence...

Science does not accept the Argument from Authority (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) of, "some guy wandering a desert 3000 years ago claimed God said so"

Are you arguing from a position of authority?     

[Moloch]

Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.

You mean like theory of gravity. LOL...

The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.

If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down.

This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".

Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law.

The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct.

Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc.

Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact.

Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind.

No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed.

I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall?

You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another.

Gravitation is an observed natural phenomenon...

The only law of gravity is that objects with mass attract each other... even this "law" is subject to change as we discover exactly what gravity is and where it originates...

Everything else falls under The Theory of Gravity... Essentially, the what, where, when, why & how of gravity...

And, as previously stated, if some aspect is deemed incorrect, the theory will adapt to a better explanation of observed events using facts and evidence...

Science does not accept the Argument from Authority (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) of, "some guy wandering a desert 3000 years ago claimed God said so"

Are you arguing from a position of authority?

Unlike you, I am arguing the position of Consensus Reality

Science operates by consensus... There is no such thing as an objective reality... Reality is subjective, and we come to a consensus on each aspect of it...

Scientists state their claim and evidence thereof, while other scientists "peer review" their evidence, trying to find any problems with the hypothesis, data collected, methods utilized, or conclusion drawn


This is a fundamental difference between science and religion

[eon89]

And now I'm curious about what he'll answer to this one. It should be something either brilliant or that God is all-powerful and that's it.

[BADecker]

Notice the words "new theories." Theories are fun, intriguing things that might be great ideas, but are not known to be facts. People can invent theories all day long.

You mean like theory of gravity. LOL...

The existence of a force that we call gravity is not a theory. The theory part has to do with what exactly gravity is.

If you try to "prove gravity" all you can do is show that, locally to you, things tend to move from up to down.

This doesn't "prove" gravity, since your experiences in the past can't be considered predictive unless you have a theory to explain why we might expect gravity to act the same way in the future, and this is why there are no "science facts".

Since the force of gravity is universal in everything that we have experience with, and since the only way to overcome it takes effort and force, gravity is a law.

The "Law of Gravity" is a theory, not a fact. If we find information that this is in some way wrong, we'll change it to make it correct.

Again, the force that we call gravity is a law. Why? Because there is no place where we do not see its force acting. The theory exists regarding how gravity works, and what it is made from, etc.

Newton's law of gravitational force can be seen here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_law_of_universal_gravitation. When this article says that Newton's law of gravity was suspended by Einstein's theory of general relativity, this means that the law of gravity was suspended in the minds of a whole bunch of people (scientists) who would rather look at non-fact than fact.

Theory, until proven factual, is fiction. Law is factual. The problem with many areas of science is that the scientists are accepting non-fact over fact. Thus, science itself is following a form of devolution, just like all of human-kind.

No. Once again, the "Law of Gravity" is a theory. If some aspect of it is incorrect, that can be changed.

I think rather than the law of gravity, you're thinking of the concept of gravity, the idea that, in our experience things tend to fall?

You might have found some theory that is entitled "Law of Gravity," but that is not gravity. That is a theory about gravity. Gravity, itself, is a law. Why? Because we have not observed any place in the whole universe where gravity does not exist in one form or another.

Gravitation is an observed natural phenomenon...

The only law of gravity is that objects with mass attract each other... even this "law" is subject to change as we discover exactly what gravity is and where it originates...

Everything else falls under The Theory of Gravity... Essentially, the what, where, when, why & how of gravity...

And, as previously stated, if some aspect is deemed incorrect, the theory will adapt to a better explanation of observed events using facts and evidence...

Science does not accept the Argument from Authority (latin: argumentum ad verecundiam) of, "some guy wandering a desert 3000 years ago claimed God said so"

Are you arguing from a position of authority?

Unlike you, I am arguing the position of Consensus Reality

Science operates by consensus... There is no such thing as an objective reality... Reality is subjective, and we come to a consensus on each aspect of it...

Scientists state their claim and evidence thereof, while other scientists "peer review" their evidence, trying to find any problems with the hypothesis, data collected, methods utilized, or conclusion drawn


This is a fundamental difference between science and religion

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then  the failure of the system is upon us.

[mainpmf]

One of the requirements for a theory to become law is that nothing in the theory can be proven false. Another is that everything in the theory must be proven true.

Most of the big cosmology theories will never be able to be proven to be true. For example, even if Big Bang Theory advance to the stage that there weren't any holes in it, Big Bang could never be proven as true until a time viewer was invented so that we could actually see what happened back then.

The reason for this is, there might be several different forms of Big Bang Theory. Which one is right? Are there more than one that are right at the same time, depending on the "angle" you might be observing the Big Bang.

Also, depending on other theories that exist, there might be some other theory that was not Big Bang at all, like the theory that suggests that everything existed indefinitely into the past, without a Big Bang at all. If it had no holes at the same time that Big Bang Theory had no holes, which one is the correct one?

We won't know until we go there one way or another.

Well what you're saying has no sense.

Quantum physics is the most proven theory in the world. Nothing is more proven that that, entropy is not proven if quantum physics is not.

It has been proven by experiments countless amount of time with the best precision in the world. If for you that's not enough then NOTHING has EVER been proven. There is no scientific law, none at all. Even cause and consequences is not proven without quantum physics!

[Moloch]

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then  the failure of the system is upon us.

Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses

What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything?  Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...

You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...

Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...

Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion

When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!

If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit

[BADecker]

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then  the failure of the system is upon us.

Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses

What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything?  Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...

You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...

Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...

Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion

When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!

If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit

Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example.

Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists.

Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right.

There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB.

You are starting to sound like you favor gambling.

[mrflibblehat]

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

[BADecker]

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

[craked5]

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

Again we're coming back to that...
How are those three laws proven for you?
Why those particular aspects of science seem true for you?

Because those laws are proven with less precision than quantum physics right now...

[Moloch]

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then  the failure of the system is upon us.

Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses

What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything?  Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...

You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...

Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...

Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion

When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!

If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit

Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example.

Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists.

Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right.

There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB.

You are starting to sound like you favor gambling.

Science has always been about consensus... you still do not understand what "theory" means in science...

Everything in science starts out as a hypothesis... including evolution... the hypothesis was evolution by the process of natural selection... this was debated, analyzed, reworded, etc for 300 years... it is currently accepted by 99% of scientists... making it the consensus theory of how humans evolved

A theory will never become a law because the two are not in the same category of things... you cannot have a "law of evolution" because the theory of evolution is too encompassing... a law can only be one specific aspect, while evolution covers 100+ aspects...

We already refer to certain aspects of the theory of evolution as laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
1) Law of Segregation (the "First Law")
2) Law of Independent Assortment (the "Second Law")
3) Law of Dominance (the "Third Law")

These are 3 of the laws guiding the genetic branch of evolution theory... evolution is a fact, it has been proven



To compare, The Big Bang Theory that you mentioned, is less of a fact, more hypothesis...  it is regarded as a theory because it is the best explanation of events that anyone on this planet has come up with... it could certainly be proven incorrect, and the chances of that are fairly high... unlike evolution, which has been proven to be a true and factual representation of events (as well as anything can be proven in science)



For contrast, Intelligent Design is not a theory... it is a hypothesis... it presents no facts that can be tested, and the hypothesis is not falsifiable... no scientists accept the hypothesis as a theory... it is not even considered science, but pseudoscience...

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.

Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among state school science teachers and newspaper reporters.

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

P.S. Please quit babbling nonsense about Hitler and Germans, you already lost as I explained above

[mOgliE]

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms.  Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex.  3rd down.

Dude, with this one I nearly cried on my keyboard!
It's impossible to make him understand! Though it's so easy to see that life forms evolve into things more complex! And so are also stars or planets. Not only life.

It's impossible to make him understand that entropy is linked to order and energy, not to complexity. That those two notions are NOT correlated. 

[xslugx]

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

So what's the cause of God? And what will happen once the universe reach final entropy which means everything is equal?

[BADecker]

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

Again we're coming back to that...
How are those three laws proven for you?
Why those particular aspects of science seem true for you?

Because those laws are proven with less precision than quantum physics right now...

These three laws are and have been proven for me just like they have for you. They are proven by science. And the fact that they have been proven is that they are called laws, not theories.

Quantum anything is theory. This means that it has not been proven. This means that it is not law.

Google it.

[BADecker]

Consensus can be kind of stupid. Consider, Hitler got the consensus of the German people and lost the war. The American people were tricked into a consensus of taking part in WWII by the American government "teasing" the Japs into bringing the war to America.

Is science really devolving to consensus rather than truth? That is exactly the kind of science that political science is. Manipulation of people rather than expressing truth and fact.

When claims and reviews ignore facts in favor of desires, then  the failure of the system is upon us.

Fact: Anyone who uses Hitler to support their argument automatically loses

What makes you think Hitler consulted the German people about anything?  Dictators dictate, they don't ask your opinion... if you are going to conspiracy theorize about WWII, at least make it plausible...

You sound exactly like Ben Carson claiming the pyramids were built to store grain... 100 things wrong with that hypothesis... hard to even argue against such a ridiculous statement, and I know you wont listen/understand anyway...

Science has always been about truth via consensus... as I stated previously, there is no objective truth, only consensus truth... that is how science works...

Nobody besides you is ignoring facts in favor of desires... that is exactly what you are doing when you ignore science in favor of religion

When you reject consensus reality, you are literally admitting that you live in fantasy land!

If you have some facts, I'd love to hear them, but please do a little research before spouting more bullshit

Science has always been about what works. Science has never been about consensus except possibly in some of the things that were not known. For example.

Big Bang Theory is theory because nobody knows that it is true. In fact, there is not even a completely flawless process promulgated whereby BB could have existed. Consensus among scientists in favor of BB doesn't make it so. Consensus only shows the wishes and desires of some scientists.

Hitler didn't dictate his support out of the German people. He coaxed it out of them. Many of the more understanding German people never joined this consensus. Many of them left Germany rather than die. Those who left understood that the consensus was not right, even if they didn't understand exactly what was right.

There are reasonable numbers of scientists who hold that the consensus of Big Bang truth is false science. Why do they think this way? Because BB has never been proven to be true, and there are loads of other possibilities besides BB.

You are starting to sound like you favor gambling.

Science has always been about consensus... you still do not understand what "theory" means in science...

Everything in science starts out as a hypothesis... including evolution... the hypothesis was evolution by the process of natural selection... this was debated, analyzed, reworded, etc for 300 years... it is currently accepted by 99% of scientists... making it the consensus theory of how humans evolved

A theory will never become a law because the two are not in the same category of things... you cannot have a "law of evolution" because the theory of evolution is too encompassing... a law can only be one specific aspect, while evolution covers 100+ aspects...

We already refer to certain aspects of the theory of evolution as laws:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance
1) Law of Segregation (the "First Law")
2) Law of Independent Assortment (the "Second Law")
3) Law of Dominance (the "Third Law")

These are 3 of the laws guiding the genetic branch of evolution theory... evolution is a fact, it has been proven



To compare, The Big Bang Theory that you mentioned, is less of a fact, more hypothesis...  it is regarded as a theory because it is the best explanation of events that anyone on this planet has come up with... it could certainly be proven incorrect, and the chances of that are fairly high... unlike evolution, which has been proven to be a true and factual representation of events (as well as anything can be proven in science)



For contrast, Intelligent Design is not a theory... it is a hypothesis... it presents no facts that can be tested, and the hypothesis is not falsifiable... no scientists accept the hypothesis as a theory... it is not even considered science, but pseudoscience...

Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method. A field, practice, or body of knowledge can reasonably be called pseudoscientific when it is presented as consistent with the norms of scientific research, but it demonstrably fails to meet these norms.

Pseudoscience is often characterized by the following: contradictory, exaggerated or unprovable claims; over-reliance on confirmation rather than rigorous attempts at refutation; lack of openness to evaluation by other experts in the field; and absence of systematic practices when rationally developing theories. The term pseudoscience is often considered pejorative, because it suggests something is being inaccurately or even deceptively portrayed as science. Accordingly, those labeled as practicing or advocating pseudoscience often dispute the characterization.

Science is distinguishable from revelation, theology, or spirituality in that it offers insight into the physical world obtained by empirical research and testing. Commonly held beliefs in popular science may not meet the criteria of science. "Pop science" may blur the divide between science and pseudoscience among the general public, and may also involve science fiction. Pseudoscientific beliefs are widespread, even among state school science teachers and newspaper reporters.

The demarcation between science and pseudoscience has philosophical and scientific implications. Differentiating science from pseudoscience has practical implications in the case of health care, expert testimony, environmental policies, and science education. Distinguishing scientific facts and theories from pseudoscientific beliefs such as those found in astrology, alchemy, medical quackery, occult beliefs, and creation science combined with scientific concepts, is part of science education and scientific literacy.

P.S. Please quit babbling nonsense about Hitler and Germans, you already lost as I explained above

You are so wrong in much of this. Theory is simply an attempt to make sense out of something. It is not law. It is possibility. In some cases it might be very probable. But it has not been proven. That's why it is theory and not law. When it is not law, it is not necessarily truth and fact. If it were truth and fact, it would be law. Keep on guessing about the theories until they are proven to be laws, or proven that they cannot even be theories.

People talk about all kinds of things in these threads. When I make a good point using referrence to Hitler, why do you call it babbling?

I never realized how weird some of you guys became. You would rather use consensus of non-facts than use facts. What happened when you were kids? Were the superheros in the comic books really real for you? Some of you are simply crazy.

[BADecker]

Nicely stated. Very good! Now see if you replace The Big Bang Theory (which is also a great show btw) with God and see how the pieces fall exactly the same way.

Scientific laws that, when combined, are proof for the existence of God:
1. Cause and effect;
2. Complex universe;
3. Universal entropy.

1. Cause and effect; - you don't have cause for God.  1st down, two to go.
2. Complex universe; - yes it is, so are other universes.  2nd down, one to go.
3. Universal entropy. - we evolved from simpler lifeforms.  Complex systems can form from less complex systems, or they can form from more complex into less complex.  3rd down.

1. God exists outside of the area where cause and affect apply to Him. Cause and effect are creations of His that apply to this universe. They help us to see for a fact that He exists.

2. If there are other universes, they are completely different than ours. If they weren't, they would simply be extensions of ours. If other universes exist, they were created by God, and in their own way lend credence to God in the same way that our complex universe does.

3. Evolution is not fact. Cause and effect says that things were programmed. Therefore, complex things that came from simple things were programmed by Something even more complex than it all. Because of this, complex doesn't really come from simple.

How retarded can you get? Keep on showing us.