Late to the party, unavoidably detained by terrain. No, god, and specifically god - with nothing else attached, just the word floating round- would not be an improbable theory. Nor would it be an improbable, or even unfalsifiable hypothesis as stated. It doesn't meet the requirements, in the way you've presented it, for a theory, a hypothesis, any measure of probability, or any measure of falsification. As it stands it's just a word you left hanging.

(January 5, 2013 at 9:16 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 8:34 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: well it doesn't explain or prove anything but it does force some valid questions , can something exist without a cause? this does not in itself lead to God but it's interesting to explore where it leads.

If not god then where do you think it leads?

not sure yet but i am going to explore shortly a line of inquiry which may include it but not necessarily rely on it , but I have a bit of research to do and maybe a few lead in threads to tease out some issues before I get the complete line of argument together ; i don't even know if its been tried before or not yet.

(January 5, 2013 at 9:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Late to the party, unavoidably detained by terrain. No, god, and specifically god - with nothing else attached, just the word floating round- would not be an improbable theory. Nor would it be an improbable, or even unfalsifiable hypothesis as stated. It doesn't meet the requirements, in the way you've presented it, for a theory, a hypothesis, any measure of probability, or any measure of falsification. As it stands it's just a word you left hanging.

Dia duit. Conas atá tú?

Cén chaoi a bhfuil an teaghlach? Tá súil agam go raibh tú go léir athbhliain faoi mhaise

(January 5, 2013 at 9:27 am)Rhythm Wrote: Late to the party, unavoidably detained by terrain. No, god, and specifically god - with nothing else attached, just the word floating round- would not be an improbable theory. Nor would it be an improbable, or even unfalsifiable hypothesis as stated. It doesn't meet the requirements, in the way you've presented it, for a theory, a hypothesis, any measure of probability, or any measure of falsification. As it stands it's just a word you left hanging.

It takes time to work out the rules and mechanics of any game but I think in time I may get an ace or two. Not being afraid to take on the big guy just because everyone else says it doesn't make sense and you can't succeed ,comes with being Irish. Ta me go maith.

Your optimism is positively enchanting. An ace or two? I'd settle for a single jack. The likes of which have never been provided to anyone -by- anyone in the history of god claims as a whole.

@Kichi, Sup, I'm doing alright, whole family got some ridiculous sub tropical flu bullshit, stuck with us the entire trip (but the kids got to see their great grandparents another time). Kids are still hacking their lungs out. I'm sure the new year can only get better from that point though, so that's nice.

(January 5, 2013 at 8:34 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 7:33 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: The cosmological argument are you serious!

Just stating that there was an uncaused first cause makes no sense.
It just pushes the question back to what caused the first cause or trying with no evidence to explain why the uncaused cause is excempt from having a cause.

It explains nothing so I reject it.

well it doesn't explain or prove anything but it does force some valid questions , can something exist without a cause? this does not in itself lead to God but it's interesting to explore where it leads.

You keep talking about cause missing the fact that QM is not arguing either way at this point caused or uncaused. We don't know currently. BUT what WAS NEVER REQUIRED, was an invisible magical super brain to start everything.

Finite or infinite does not require a thinking being. God believers want that superstitious starting point. Science says whatever happened a being did not start it.

Human evolution and our flawed perceptions as a species are the reason all god concepts exist(as mere claims). Because it is a phychological antropromorphic reflection of our species narcissism in our REAL desire to continue.

God belief is just a fiction we make up as a species that reflects our wisfhul thinking in wanting to continue on.

Brian37 Wrote:Science says whatever happened a being did not start it.

science or infallable scientists

(January 5, 2013 at 8:34 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: well it doesn't explain or prove anything but it does force some valid questions , can something exist without a cause? this does not in itself lead to God but it's interesting to explore where it leads.

The Cosmological Argument fails on all levels.

It does not force valid questions because it is based on invalid logic.

Just to begin with, the CA contains the fallacy of composition and an equivocation fallacy.

(January 5, 2013 at 1:05 pm)Mark 13:13 Wrote:

Brian37 Wrote:Science says whatever happened a being did not start it.

science or infallable scientists

You are confusing the tool with the person using the tool. When a scientist gets it wrong the ethical scientist scraps the bad data and method and starts over or moves on.

The tool of scientific method has lead to the WIDE concensus of those at the top of the QM field of study that a cognition is NOT required.

You are stupidly trying to turn back the clock because you don't like where the evidence is leading.

QM will not lead us to the existence of Allah, or Vishnu, or Thor or create the human ability for little boys to fly arround on brooms like Harry Potter.

Now if you got a problem with Stephen Hawkins "A god is not required", then argue with him.

Conduct your emperical studies get them peer reivewed by the elete like Hawkins and I am sure you will win a Nobel Prize in Science. But I am placing my bets that you'd have as much luck with that as a Muslim, Jew, Hindu or Mormon.

So lets make a date when you get your confirmed findings, how about a week from NEVER.

The reality as our top scientists findings is putting "all this" as being the result of a process, like winter changes into spring changing into summer changing into fall. QM is allowing us a much deeper understanding of this non cognitive process, but it is NOT pointing to a cognition as being a requirement for a starting point.

You merely like to turn reality into a comic book because it sounds nice to you. That is your baggage, not mine.

(January 5, 2013 at 1:17 pm)Simon Moon Wrote:

(January 5, 2013 at 8:34 am)Mark 13:13 Wrote: well it doesn't explain or prove anything but it does force some valid questions , can something exist without a cause? this does not in itself lead to God but it's interesting to explore where it leads.

The Cosmological Argument fails on all levels.

It does not force valid questions because it is based on invalid logic.

Just to begin with, the CA contains the fallacy of composition and an equivocation fallacy.

i will take your word for it for now as I not planning to use it yet ; there may even be a more upto date version that avoids the pitfalls you mention but its not the thrust of my exploration at the moment.