Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.

[Mark 13:13]

was there something wrong with the maths?

What's scientifically untestable can't be a part of science. Math can't fix that. It's not a theory if it can't be tested. It's not even a hypothesis if it can't be tested in principle. For God to be part of a scientific theory, it would have to be possible to prove that God is NOT the correct explanation. Probability doesn't enter into it at all.

No place for probability in science mmmh
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/probab...interpret/
"Probability is virtually ubiquitous. It plays a role in almost all the sciences. It underpins much of the social sciences — witness the prevalent use of statistical testing, confidence intervals, regression methods, and so on. It finds its way, moreover, into much of philosophy. In epistemology, the philosophy of mind, and cognitive science, we see states of opinion being modeled by subjective probability functions, and learning being modeled by the updating of such functions. Since probability theory is central to decision theory and game theory, it has ramifications for ethics and political philosophy. It figures prominently in such staples of metaphysics as causation and laws of nature. It appears again in the philosophy of science in the analysis of confirmation of theories, scientific explanation, and in the philosophy of specific scientific theories, such as quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, and genetics. It can even take center stage in the philosophy of logic, the philosophy of language, and the philosophy of religion. Thus, problems in the foundations of probability bear at least indirectly, and sometimes directly, upon central scientific, social scientific, and philosophical concerns."


"No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right;
a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein

[Mister Agenda]

What's scientifically untestable can't be a part of science. Math can't fix that. It's not a theory if it can't be tested. It's not even a hypothesis if it can't be tested in principle. For God to be part of a scientific theory, it would have to be possible to prove that God is NOT the correct explanation. Probability doesn't enter into it at all.

You are using the word Theory in a very tight band in order to exclude GOD. out of curiousity what is the difference between a theory and a fact?

I'm using it in its scientific sense because YOU'RE using it in it's scientific sense. Colloquially, a theory is about the same as speculation. That you think I'm using the term in its scientific sense just to exclude God does not reflect well on you. Scientific theories are made of facts, and explain them.

[Mark 13:13]

You are using the word Theory in a very tight band in order to exclude GOD. out of curiousity what is the difference between a theory and a fact?

I'm using it in its scientific sense because YOU'RE using it in it's scientific sense. Colloquially, a theory is about the same as speculation. That you think I'm using the term in its scientific sense just to exclude God does not reflect well on you. Scientific theories are made of facts, and explain them.

So is a Scientific Theory a fact?

[Mister Agenda]

What's scientifically untestable can't be a part of science. Math can't fix that. It's not a theory if it can't be tested. It's not even a hypothesis if it can't be tested in principle. For God to be part of a scientific theory, it would have to be possible to prove that God is NOT the correct explanation. Probability doesn't enter into it at all.

No place for probability in science mmmh

I see you're as honest in representing me as you are in representing Dawkins.

I never said there is no place for probability in science. If you're going to paraphrase try: Whether God can be part of a scientific theory is a matter of the definitions of 'God' and 'scientific theory', not probability.

I'm losing faith in your good faith.

---

I'm using it in its scientific sense because YOU'RE using it in it's scientific sense. Colloquially, a theory is about the same as speculation. That you think I'm using the term in its scientific sense just to exclude God does not reflect well on you. Scientific theories are made of facts, and explain them.

So is a Scientific Theory a fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

[Faith No More]

I'm far from certain, I would actually believe that its likely many have come out of some form or religious background and through some process or other lost faith. But i don't believe that it can't be regained and ( don't start screaming at me every time I mention Bible ) there are several stories in the bible where Christ for whatever reason made some people work a little harder before he helped them. Even the chosen people had to endure 40 days in the desert before they got to the promised land.

Well, you may see it as a "loss of faith," but we see it as an acceptance of reality and reason. To get someone that has come to that conclusion to reconsider their postion you are going to have to appeal to reason, not appeal to them to reexamine faith, which is essentially an appeal to emotion, and using your emotions to determine truth is a failing endeavor.

As for God making some work harder than others, does that seem fair? You and I both have the same risk, the fate of our eternal soul, but for some reason he may require me to put in more effort? Did you ever stop to think that such stories are a ploy to keep the credulous from admitting that their search for god has yielded no results?

[Brian37]

No place for probability in science mmmh

I see you're as honest in representing me as you are in representing Dawkins.

I never said there is no place for probability in science. If you're going to paraphrase try: Whether God can be part of a scientific theory is a matter of the definitions of 'God' and 'scientific theory', not probability.

I'm losing faith in your good faith.

---

So is a Scientific Theory a fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

The theist treats "theory" differently than a scientist when they use it. Much like they twist the word "natural" as being always happy and magical, when all "natural" means in the scientific community is "an observation".

Evolution is as much scientific fact as gravity and entropy. They just cant stand that some people do not feel the need to sex up reality to comic book levels.

---

. Even the chosen people had to endure 40 days in the desert before they got to the promised land.

Someone else thought his people were chosen and 6 million other's died because of that, actually when you take into account all the military and civilian deaths WW2 caused the deaths of 50 million people. All because of the stupid trope humans perpetuate.

There is no "chosen people", there is merely our evolutionary flaw of narcissism that allows humans to create groups to claim how "special" they are.

"Promised land, is as stupid as father land, or mother land or even here in the states I hate our country using "homeland". We are first and foremost humans. Our clubs and labels are merely our personal predilections we use to create a stupid contrast to merely make ourselves "feel special".

Evolution was around before our current myths and boarders and evolution will continue after we die.

On a psychological level we have to "feel special" on an evolutionary sense because that natural drive pushes us to reproduce. But the negative affect is that it causes in our species "in group" vs "out groups".

I hate that term "chosen people". I see life without comic book goggles on. I see nothing wrong as seeing oneself as unique, and certainly we as individuals are special to our friends and family, but in our species entire history we are still ultimately temporary blips on the evolutionary scale.

[SkyMutt]

So is a Scientific Theory a fact?

I gave you an excellent brief reference which addresses this question a few pages ago in the post which you've seen fit to ignore.

[Mark 13:13]

I'm far from certain, I would actually believe that its likely many have come out of some form or religious background and through some process or other lost faith. But i don't believe that it can't be regained and ( don't start screaming at me every time I mention Bible ) there are several stories in the bible where Christ for whatever reason made some people work a little harder before he helped them. Even the chosen people had to endure 40 days in the desert before they got to the promised land.

Well, you may see it as a "loss of faith," but we see it as an acceptance of reality and reason. To get someone that has come to that conclusion to reconsider their postion you are going to have to appeal to reason, not appeal to them to reexamine faith, which is essentially an appeal to emotion, and using your emotions to determine truth is a failing endeavor.

As for God making some work harder than others, does that seem fair? You and I both have the same risk, the fate of our eternal soul, but for some reason he may require me to put in more effort? Did you ever stop to think that such stories are a ploy to keep the credulous from admitting that their search for god has yielded no results?

No it doesn't seem fair to my mind (uno where I go with that so wont bore you) , as far as appealing to reason why would I when reason took you to where you are along with whatever life experiences you had. But I can't resist typing what was just on the tv as I glanced across, (I wasn't watching one of the kids was) . Maybe there's something in it for you or maybe it was just a co incidence but the Movie was the recent comedy NOAH and the guy who normaly plays GOD in these ( can't rem name ) is advising NOAH wife says something along these lines. When someone prays to GOD for courage do you think he gives him courage or the opportunity to have courage, or when someone prays for patience does GOD give them patience or the opportunity to learn to be patient so maybe if you pray to GOD for faith GOD provides the opportunity to learn to have faith.

---

No place for probability in science mmmh

I see you're as honest in representing me as you are in representing Dawkins.

I never said there is no place for probability in science. If you're going to paraphrase try: Whether God can be part of a scientific theory is a matter of the definitions of 'God' and 'scientific theory', not probability.

I'm losing faith in your good faith.

---

So is a Scientific Theory a fact?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

Well I got lost in your words if I read them wrong then sry but so I can be clear before I answer are you saying that GOD can only exist if he can be defined properly ? or if scientific theory accepts him ? what exactly are you saying.

[Cyberman]

out of curiousity what is the difference between a theory and a fact?

That's an easy one.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  
  
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  
  
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  
  
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

[Mark 13:13]

out of curiousity what is the difference between a theory and a fact?

That's an easy one.

• Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
  
  
• Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
  
  
• Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
  
  
• Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

So is there any place in a discussion dealing with philosophy, the supernatural or Transendental for these words as they appear to have evolved purely to deal with the natural "observable" world ( i use the word loosely for anything measurable.