Posted: Feb 23, 2012 5:35 pm
Sigh. One last heave....
Fixed it for you. Occam's Razor at work. It doesn't matter whether the scientist is atheist, theist, or yellow with purple spots. The application of the scientific method is the same, and if you cannot make testable conditions from "goddidit", then "goddidit" is useless as an explanation.
Simple. By noting that "magic" explains absolutely nothing, whereas scientific hypotheses both supported by repeatable empirical evidence, have tremendous explanatory power.
This indicates your misunderstanding of the scientific method. Formulating a hypothesis is the beginning of the scientific process, not the end. Having formulated your hypothesis, you then have to make testable predicitions from it, and then see if those predictions are verified by experimental results.
You seem to think that if you come up with any explanation at all, no matter how bizarre, or far fetched, the simple fact of having come up with an explanation enables you to say, therefore, God. QED.
Sorry. It just doesn't work like that. Until you grasp this concept, your pontifications on scientific subjects will continue to be... not even wrong.
Lion IRC wrote:
The theistphysicist asks how did God do it. can I come up with an explanation which can be verified by experimental results?
The atheist physicist asks how is it possible without God.] can I come up with an explanation which can be verified by experimental results?
Fixed it for you. Occam's Razor at work. It doesn't matter whether the scientist is atheist, theist, or yellow with purple spots. The application of the scientific method is the same, and if you cannot make testable conditions from "goddidit", then "goddidit" is useless as an explanation.
I dont think of God as magic but even if you did think of God as a "magic wand" how can you then argue against Him?
Simple. By noting that "magic" explains absolutely nothing, whereas scientific hypotheses both supported by repeatable empirical evidence, have tremendous explanatory power.
If you admit even the slightest degree of metaphysics into the "Something out of Nothing" question about our origins, you are hard pressed to reject theism as a valid hypothesis.
This indicates your misunderstanding of the scientific method. Formulating a hypothesis is the beginning of the scientific process, not the end. Having formulated your hypothesis, you then have to make testable predicitions from it, and then see if those predictions are verified by experimental results.
You seem to think that if you come up with any explanation at all, no matter how bizarre, or far fetched, the simple fact of having come up with an explanation enables you to say, therefore, God. QED.
Sorry. It just doesn't work like that. Until you grasp this concept, your pontifications on scientific subjects will continue to be... not even wrong.