Scientists to unveil proof of ‘God particle’

[Cowman]

I'll humor you...

....do you agree with scientists like astrophysicist Fred Hoyle, who advanced, after studying the resonances of carbon during nucleosynthesis, the following: “The universe,” he concluded, “looks like a put-up job.” An atheist, Hoyle did not care to consider who might have put the job up, and when pressed, he took refuge in the hypothesis that aliens were at fault. In this master stroke he was joined later by Francis Crick.

So...you down with the 'scientific' thesis that aliens brought the first life to our planet?

Why should I have to answer for an idea that occurred around 60 years ago that has an incredibly small amount of credibility, if any, among contemporary scientists?

"The discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, believed life on earth came about from DNA seeded here by an alien civilization from a far-off planet. As Graham Hancock points out in his book “Supernatural” - subtitled “Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind” - Crick’s hypothesis was “………oddly similar in its essence to the cosmology of the ayahuasca-drinking Yagua Indians of the Peruvian Amazon, who told the French anthropologist Jean-Pierre Chaumeil: At the very beginning, before the birth of the earth, this earth here, our most distant ancestors lived on another earth…………..”.
Carta Blanc: A Junkyard Hurricane and Zipf's Law


Science....filled with as much hypothetical speculation as religion.

Graham Hancock is a charlatan, not a scientist.

He's a regular on conspiracy theory-esque programs like Coast to Coast AM and Ancient Aliens on the History Channel...the idea doesn't constitute what's professionally viewed as theoretical science, not by a long-shot.

1. "Why should I have to answer for an idea...blah blah blah..."
That proves my point. There are tons of absurd ideas once known as science.

Yeah and if we had the same fucking belief system in our science as you do your religions, we would still be fucking believing those things. It would be the "book of stupid idea 32" and we would revere it... maybe think it was a little bit kooky and not applicable to modern times, but still view it as the word of god.

Instead, we completely abandon scientific theories that are demonstrated to be bunk, again and again in history. We move towards perfection. We don't get hung up on things unless they work, but at which point they are proven to be incorrect, we move on to the next thing.

There is nothing comparable at all in the religious world. The only thing comparable would be religious nomads who wander from religion to religion after determining that the next one is even more plausible than the last. And no, Christianity is NOT that plausible religion.

 

[Cowman]

Explain dark matter and the fact that every single designed experiment to prove the existence of dark matter has failed.

Explain dark matter? How the fuck can I explain that? We're still learning about it. The Higgs Bosun is a potential key to understanding it.

Actually, the Higgs being found does more to disprove dark matter than it does to prove it. You should try reading the articles that get posted in a discussion like this one, they can be very informative. This was posted earlier.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

What the fuck? Did I say 'prove', retard? I said understand. Understand better what we call Dark Matter.

If it can somehow effectively demonstrate that Dark Matter is an entirely silly notion, WE WILL ABANDON IT.

You religious people haven't abandoned your religions after having it demonstrated how fucking silly they are. Many of you have though. I have.

 

[bobcollum]

"Amazing how a "faith"-based theory...."

Good enough for me.

Yeah, you should probably pack up and head home.

Getting owned never looks good on you.

That sure is a time saving technique you've got there!


I get you to admit that I was correct...and you want me to continue.....????

...with what?


Knitting you a sweater????


It's the loneliness, isn't it?
Need a shoulder to cry on? Pull over to the side of the road.

Oh good, you're still flailing away.

Hit the webs, I'm sure there's something out there you can C&P that proves nothing.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Don't start on me QW, read my discussion with PC in this thread, I'll end up having to repeat it to you, and I'm not doing that.

I am making different points than she is. I actually understand both theology and science on a deeper level than she does. Not that she couldn't give me a run for the money on either subject if she put her mind to it because she is a fantastic researcher, and can string together facts in interesting ways, but I actually know this stuff. I studied science for years, worked in a highly technical field, and kept up with the new research out of curiosity.

I applied my training in science to studying theology after I became a Christian, and can see the connections between them a lot clearer than she can. I can understand your fear of actually debating me, but that won't stop me from making my points.

I wouldn't go that far.

I've had nearly an identical discussion with KG and I thought you as well on another thread. I'd be shocked if one between us would go much differently at all.

Frankly I can't comprehend how someone like you, who seems to know things about this topic, would try to argue that theoretical sciences are comparable to religion.



It's like my comment to PC earlier that went ignored, are any of you followers of the Christian faith willing to admit that it's mostly theoretical, and thus not proven correct?

Nobody seems to want to touch that one.

Of course you can't, because your belief system precludes you accepting that it is possible to reconcile science and religion. That is because you approach the universe with the fundamental assumption that everything can be explained, and that that explanation will, ultimately, preclude the existence of God.

In answer to your question, I refuse to speak for others, but I can tell you that I am aware that I might be wrong about the existence of God. The thing is, my belief in Him is based on an examination of all the evidence available. I know what science tells me, I know the holes in the theories, and I can examine the evidence that is out there that God exists. I know there are people who have manufactured evidence in an attempt to prove that God is real. I also know that there are people that have done the same thing in an attempt to prove He isn't.

At this point the evidence leads me to conclude that God is real, and that He cares enough about human history to interfere in the normal operation of it on occasion. I think that if I were in charge I would interfere more often, but I also know I don't know as much as him, so I don't consider the fact that He doesn't get involved more often as proof he does not exist, or that He doesn't care.

A lot of people argue that the fact that God does not prevent suffering is proof he doesn't exist. I do not consider the fact that the President of the United States does jump into every individual case that involves someone doing something he thinks is right as proof he doesn't care the issues, why should others hold the fact that God doesn't do it proof of anything?

Ultimately, if science proves that God doesn't exist, or something else proves it, I will adapt and go on. That does not scare me nearly as much as the fact that He might exist scares some people who refuse to believe in Him.

So, ultimately, the problem in this discussion is not my inability to accept I might be wrong, it is yours to accept that I might be right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Yeah, you should probably pack up and head home.

Getting owned never looks good on you.

That sure is a time saving technique you've got there!


I get you to admit that I was correct...and you want me to continue.....????

...with what?


Knitting you a sweater????


It's the loneliness, isn't it?
Need a shoulder to cry on? Pull over to the side of the road.

Oh good, you're still flailing away.

Hit the webs, I'm sure there's something out there you can C&P that proves nothing.

Ohhhhh....sulking?


With your foot that firmly planted in your mouth, you are probably very attractive to Rex Ryan.

 

[bobcollum]

^ Pointless, as expected.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So you're basically denying the existence of all the things we owe our thanks to quantum mechanics on? Transistors, lasers, quantum cryptopgraphy. THOSE THINGS EXIST, and they are thanks to quantum mechanics.

Sorry, but in terms of the type of belief your religious folk engage in, that is god literally giving man the power to conjure miracles. It's real, and it's tangible. Those theories have yielded us real world results and technologies.



Anouncer: It's a dead heat! They're checking the electron microscope. And the winner is... Number three in a quantum finish!

Professor Farnsworth: No fair! You changed the outcome by measuring it!

Sorry, but my lack of ability to understand the sciences on the level that the scientists do DOES NOT mean I do not lack an understanding of the theories themselves. I have a very good understanding of what the Higgs Boson represents and I'm very fascinated by quantum cryptography and quantum computers and have studied a great deal about them.

It's called having an educated opinion. You can have that without actually having degrees in the field.

We don't owe all that much to quantum dynamics, we owe quite a bit to the natural phenomena that quantum dynamics attempts to explain. I suggest you do some basic reading, you can start with this article posted earlier in the thread.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

The real problem here is that quantum mechanics and the standard model are incompatible, yet both survive because all the predictions of the standard model are holding, and none of the predictions of the various models of quantum mechanics have matched up to reality. We should have discovered a slew of particles by now, and we haven't. Each time we don't the predictions of quantum mechanics become less tenable, but we are forced to cling to the overarching theory because nothing else works.

That explains why real scientists are concerned, why Hawkings bet against finding the Higgs, and why you are just as bad as the ignorant believers who sneer at the scientists who study the universe.

If quantum mechanics couldn't explain it, how the hell do we have an endless variety of things that benefit from our understanding of quantum mechanics?

It's not like gravity, where you don't need to understand gravity to have things fall down.

Don't be such a retard.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

 

[Cowman]

We don't owe all that much to quantum dynamics, we owe quite a bit to the natural phenomena that quantum dynamics attempts to explain. I suggest you do some basic reading, you can start with this article posted earlier in the thread.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

The real problem here is that quantum mechanics and the standard model are incompatible, yet both survive because all the predictions of the standard model are holding, and none of the predictions of the various models of quantum mechanics have matched up to reality. We should have discovered a slew of particles by now, and we haven't. Each time we don't the predictions of quantum mechanics become less tenable, but we are forced to cling to the overarching theory because nothing else works.

That explains why real scientists are concerned, why Hawkings bet against finding the Higgs, and why you are just as bad as the ignorant believers who sneer at the scientists who study the universe.

If quantum mechanics couldn't explain it, how the hell do we have an endless variety of things that benefit from our understanding of quantum mechanics?

It's not like gravity, where you don't need to understand gravity to have things fall down.

Don't be such a retard.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

You have to understand it to build it, that's the entire fucking point we're mentioning.

The computer devices you love so much. YOU COULD NOT USE IT if our scientists did not understand it and people did not make stuff from that understanding.

You think transistors would have just come around without an understanding of quantum mechanics?

Give me a fucking break.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Explain dark matter? How the fuck can I explain that? We're still learning about it. The Higgs Bosun is a potential key to understanding it.

Actually, the Higgs being found does more to disprove dark matter than it does to prove it. You should try reading the articles that get posted in a discussion like this one, they can be very informative. This was posted earlier.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

What the fuck? Did I say 'prove', retard? I said understand. Understand better what we call Dark Matter.

If it can somehow effectively demonstrate that Dark Matter is an entirely silly notion, WE WILL ABANDON IT.

You religious people haven't abandoned your religions after having it demonstrated how fucking silly they are. Many of you have though. I have.

The problem here is that dark matter, ultimately, is a sill notion. The idea is that there is a bunch of stuff out there that is impossible to detect, cannot be seen or felt, yet it has to exist because, without it, the universe wouldn't work. We can clearly see that something is holding the universe together, and it even appear that some scientist have demonstrated a lensing effect by look at galaxies on the other side of where it would have to be. There is plenty of evidence something is there, and dark matter is the easiest explanation, despite the fact that it is absurd.

Obvious, the the bar we use for science is not silly, despite your lack of understanding.

 

[Cowman]

Actually, the Higgs being found does more to disprove dark matter than it does to prove it. You should try reading the articles that get posted in a discussion like this one, they can be very informative. This was posted earlier.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

What the fuck? Did I say 'prove', retard? I said understand. Understand better what we call Dark Matter.

If it can somehow effectively demonstrate that Dark Matter is an entirely silly notion, WE WILL ABANDON IT.

You religious people haven't abandoned your religions after having it demonstrated how fucking silly they are. Many of you have though. I have.

The problem here is that dark matter, ultimately, is a sill notion. The idea is that there is a bunch of stuff out there that is impossible to detect, cannot be seen or felt, yet it has to exist because, without it, the universe wouldn't work. We can clearly see that something is holding the universe together, and it even appear that some scientist have demonstrated a lensing effect by look at galaxies on the other side of where it would have to be. There is plenty of evidence something is there, and dark matter is the easiest explanation, despite the fact that it is absurd.

Obvious, the the bar we use for science is not silly, despite your lack of understanding.

Ahhh... a hardcore bible thumper talking about lack of scientific understanding. Priceless.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If quantum mechanics couldn't explain it, how the hell do we have an endless variety of things that benefit from our understanding of quantum mechanics?

It's not like gravity, where you don't need to understand gravity to have things fall down.

Don't be such a retard.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

You have to understand it to build it, that's the entire fucking point we're mentioning.

The computer devices you love so much. YOU COULD NOT USE IT if our scientists did not understand it and people did not make stuff from that understanding.

You think transistors would have just come around without an understanding of quantum mechanics?

Give me a fucking break.

Explain how the Jews built a sanitary system that protected them from diseases like the plague without any understanding of germ theory, or even fundamental medical science.

I don't expect an answer from you because religion is silly, and the fact that the Jews got this right long before science did is a coincidence that can be easily explained by dark matter.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What the fuck? Did I say 'prove', retard? I said understand. Understand better what we call Dark Matter.

If it can somehow effectively demonstrate that Dark Matter is an entirely silly notion, WE WILL ABANDON IT.

You religious people haven't abandoned your religions after having it demonstrated how fucking silly they are. Many of you have though. I have.

The problem here is that dark matter, ultimately, is a sill notion. The idea is that there is a bunch of stuff out there that is impossible to detect, cannot be seen or felt, yet it has to exist because, without it, the universe wouldn't work. We can clearly see that something is holding the universe together, and it even appear that some scientist have demonstrated a lensing effect by look at galaxies on the other side of where it would have to be. There is plenty of evidence something is there, and dark matter is the easiest explanation, despite the fact that it is absurd.

Obvious, the the bar we use for science is not silly, despite your lack of understanding.

Ahhh... a hardcore bible thumper talking about lack of scientific understanding. Priceless.

Yep, I don't understand science because I know when it is being silly.

 

[Cowman]

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

You have to understand it to build it, that's the entire fucking point we're mentioning.

The computer devices you love so much. YOU COULD NOT USE IT if our scientists did not understand it and people did not make stuff from that understanding.

You think transistors would have just come around without an understanding of quantum mechanics?

Give me a fucking break.

Explain how the Jews built a sanitary system that protected them from diseases like the plague without any understanding of germ theory, or even fundamental medical science.

I don't expect an answer from you because religion is silly, and the fact that the Jews got this right long before science did is a coincidence that can be easily explained by dark matter.

Holy shit, are you comparing the ability to see and understand that people get sick from diseases if they don't practice sanitation, to quantum mechanic understanding?

You don't actually believe that Jews pioneered sanitation, do you? If so, you're historically ignorant as well.

And I don't understand why you think that "they got this right before science even understood it" is a valid point in any argument.

We do not exist in a time where scientific advancement lags behind human understanding.

These arguments that you're putting forth about how jews washed their hands and so it has some basis to discuss quantum mechanics... it's just painfully ridiculous.

 

[bobcollum]

I am making different points than she is. I actually understand both theology and science on a deeper level than she does. Not that she couldn't give me a run for the money on either subject if she put her mind to it because she is a fantastic researcher, and can string together facts in interesting ways, but I actually know this stuff. I studied science for years, worked in a highly technical field, and kept up with the new research out of curiosity.

I applied my training in science to studying theology after I became a Christian, and can see the connections between them a lot clearer than she can. I can understand your fear of actually debating me, but that won't stop me from making my points.

I wouldn't go that far.

I've had nearly an identical discussion with KG and I thought you as well on another thread. I'd be shocked if one between us would go much differently at all.

Frankly I can't comprehend how someone like you, who seems to know things about this topic, would try to argue that theoretical sciences are comparable to religion.



It's like my comment to PC earlier that went ignored, are any of you followers of the Christian faith willing to admit that it's mostly theoretical, and thus not proven correct?

Nobody seems to want to touch that one.

Of course you can't, because your belief system precludes you accepting that it is possible to reconcile science and religion. That is because you approach the universe with the fundamental assumption that everything can be explained, and that that explanation will, ultimately, preclude the existence of God.

You assume my belief system. I'm not an atheist, because in the words of George Will, "I'm not that decisive", but it's also why I don't worship a god. You're correct in noting that I believe everything can be explained, however you once again assume that I have a motive other than finding factual answers, which I don't. If it turns out there is hard evidence proving the existence of a god besides 'I don't know what else it could be', well guess what I'm going to accept?

In answer to your question, I refuse to speak for others, but I can tell you that I am aware that I might be wrong about the existence of God. The thing is, my belief in Him is based on an examination of all the evidence available. I know what science tells me, I know the holes in the theories, and I can examine the evidence that is out there that God exists. I know there are people who have manufactured evidence in an attempt to prove that God is real. I also know that there are people that have done the same thing in an attempt to prove He isn't.

Thanks for the answer. I have to ask is it evidence, or in all actuality a lack of evidence on the scientific end that has led you to conclude that god is real?

At this point the evidence leads me to conclude that God is real, and that He cares enough about human history to interfere in the normal operation of it on occasion. I think that if I were in charge I would interfere more often, but I also know I don't know as much as him, so I don't consider the fact that He doesn't get involved more often as proof he does not exist, or that He doesn't care.

Link? Again I wonder if it's evidence or a lack thereof...

A lot of people argue that the fact that God does not prevent suffering is proof he doesn't exist. I do not consider the fact that the President of the United States does jump into every individual case that involves someone doing something he thinks is right as proof he doesn't care the issues, why should others hold the fact that God doesn't do it proof of anything?

To me it doesn't seem logical to make a comparison between the POTUS and an omnipotent creator. That's a different discussion for a different day, and a different thread.

Ultimately, if science proves that God doesn't exist, or something else proves it, I will adapt and go on. That does not scare me nearly as much as the fact that He might exist scares some people who refuse to believe in Him.

It's big of you to say that, I doubt KG or PC could be that intellectually honest about it.

So, ultimately, the problem in this discussion is not my inability to accept I might be wrong, it is yours to accept that I might be right.

You always have to throw a dig in there eh?

I've said time and time again to many people throughout my life...if Jesus Christ appears before me and to me it's real, I ain't gonna deny it.

I see absolutely no reason to suspect that there is a god besides a lack of an explanation at this time from a scientific standpoint, but that doesn't make the grade as evidence, not to me anyway.

 

[bobcollum]

We don't owe all that much to quantum dynamics, we owe quite a bit to the natural phenomena that quantum dynamics attempts to explain. I suggest you do some basic reading, you can start with this article posted earlier in the thread.

The Higgs Boson could break physics (Wired UK)

The real problem here is that quantum mechanics and the standard model are incompatible, yet both survive because all the predictions of the standard model are holding, and none of the predictions of the various models of quantum mechanics have matched up to reality. We should have discovered a slew of particles by now, and we haven't. Each time we don't the predictions of quantum mechanics become less tenable, but we are forced to cling to the overarching theory because nothing else works.

That explains why real scientists are concerned, why Hawkings bet against finding the Higgs, and why you are just as bad as the ignorant believers who sneer at the scientists who study the universe.

If quantum mechanics couldn't explain it, how the hell do we have an endless variety of things that benefit from our understanding of quantum mechanics?

It's not like gravity, where you don't need to understand gravity to have things fall down.

Don't be such a retard.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

As far as I'm concerned you're much better off using "hasn't" instead of "cannot".

It's like a year ago saying that we cannot find a higgs boson instead of stating that we haven't found it, because as we all know, things change and science is always trying to move forward.

 

[bobcollum]

Let us also note that this thread was completely devoid of any argumentative attitude until a Christian came in and started shitting on the momentous scientific breakthrough.

So who is it that's worried again?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You have to understand it to build it, that's the entire fucking point we're mentioning.

The computer devices you love so much. YOU COULD NOT USE IT if our scientists did not understand it and people did not make stuff from that understanding.

You think transistors would have just come around without an understanding of quantum mechanics?

Give me a fucking break.

Explain how the Jews built a sanitary system that protected them from diseases like the plague without any understanding of germ theory, or even fundamental medical science.

I don't expect an answer from you because religion is silly, and the fact that the Jews got this right long before science did is a coincidence that can be easily explained by dark matter.

Holy shit, are you comparing the ability to see and understand that people get sick from diseases if they don't practice sanitation, to quantum mechanic understanding?

You don't actually believe that Jews pioneered sanitation, do you? If so, you're historically ignorant as well.

And I don't understand why you think that "they got this right before science even understood it" is a valid point in any argument.

We do not exist in a time where scientific advancement lags behind human understanding.

These arguments that you're putting forth about how jews washed their hands and so it has some basis to discuss quantum mechanics... it's just painfully ridiculous.

The Jews not only managed to figure out that people get sick if they don't practice sanitation, they also managed to figure out that boiling water and fire sterilize things. They did this thousands of years before anyone else, and did so at a time when people apparently thought disease was a curse from God. Yet, somehow, this proves that religion is silly.

Got it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You assume my belief system. I'm not an atheist, because in the words of George Will, "I'm not that decisive", but it's also why I don't worship a god. You're correct in noting that I believe everything can be explained, however you once again assume that I have a motive other than finding factual answers, which I don't. If it turns out there is hard evidence proving the existence of a god besides 'I don't know what else it could be', well guess what I'm going to accept?

Your belief system precludes the existence of God, simple fact. That does not make you an atheist, anymore than my belief in the existence of God makes me a Catholic. I am not making assumptions about your beliefs.

I want to point out something, math has proven that it is impossible to know everything. Science did not do this, scientists, rightly, refuse to believe that there are questions it is impossible to answer.

Me, being a contradictory and stubborn human being, can accept that math has conclusively proven it is impossible to have all the answers, and still strive for all the answers.

Thanks for the answer. I have to ask is it evidence, or in all actuality a lack of evidence on the scientific end that has led you to conclude that god is real?

It is evidence. The evidence happens to be circumstantial, and mostly subjective, but it is still evidence.

Link? Again I wonder if it's evidence or a lack thereof...

Link to what? The Bible? The fact that Jews were often thought of as evil because they did not get sick when everyone else in a city got the plague?

Instead of wondering about the basis of my belief system you might want to examine the basis of yours.

To me it doesn't seem logical to make a comparison between the POTUS and an omnipotent creator. That's a different discussion for a different day, and a different thread.

Of course it doesn't, because the fact that a human being is constrained by ethical and legal choices in no way proves that it is logically consistent to presume that God might have similar constraints.

It's big of you to say that, I doubt KG or PC could be that intellectually honest about it.

What evidence do you have of that other than your own prejudice? (I will admit that koshergirl might be a tad unwilling to accept evidence as definitive at first, but that does not mean she is going to reject it altogether.

You always have to throw a dig in there eh?

Didn't you just question whether the evidence I have is real or part of a misunderstanding I have about the difference between evidence and the lack of evidence more than once? How is my understanding of a flaw in your character any less valid than

I've said time and time again to many people throughout my life...if Jesus Christ appears before me and to me it's real, I ain't gonna deny it.

Which actually proves my point, even if you don't see it.

Even if Jesus did appear to you, and you touched him, how would that prove to you that God is real? Couldn't he be a clone, or have been plucked from the past by a time machine?

I see absolutely no reason to suspect that there is a god besides a lack of an explanation at this time from a scientific standpoint, but that doesn't make the grade as evidence, not to me anyway.

Yet you demand grade a evidence of His existence.

Interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If quantum mechanics couldn't explain it, how the hell do we have an endless variety of things that benefit from our understanding of quantum mechanics?

It's not like gravity, where you don't need to understand gravity to have things fall down.

Don't be such a retard.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works, yet we still benefit from it.

Medical science couldn't explain infections when Pasteur urged doctors to wash their hands after touching sick people, but millions of people ultimately benefited from the increased sanitation. (Side note, the Jews ultimately benefited from the sanitary rules handed down in Leviticus long before Pasteur ever came up with germ theory.)

We don't need to understand something to use it, if we did most people wouldn't be able to drive because they have no idea how thermodynamics works.

As far as I'm concerned you're much better off using "hasn't" instead of "cannot".

It's like a year ago saying that we cannot find a higgs boson instead of stating that we haven't found it, because as we all know, things change and science is always trying to move forward.

Physics cannot explain how gravity works.

Period.

It probably will be able to in the future, but I am perfectly comfortable saying it cannot.

 

[Cowman]

Even if Jesus did appear to you, and you touched him, how would that prove to you that God is real? Couldn't he be a clone, or have been plucked from the past by a time machine?

Because he'd perform some fucking miracles and start rapturing everybody.