Enmos
Valued Senior Member
I don't know either way.. what's your point ? All I can say it that they apparently have been constant for a long time now.
Could you please just answer my post (33) ?
Unproven for lack of evidence. Atheism/Theism
- Thread starter Mr. Hamtastic
- Start date
I don't know either way.. what's your point ? All I can say it that they apparently have been constant for a long time now.
Could you please just answer my post (33) ?
It's not your fault, it's Sam attempting to derail yet another thread with gibberish.
So you cannot test them, they are not falsifiable and yet, every single scientific theory is based on the assumption that the laws are fixed and unchanging. IOW, science is based on faith. How do you explain that?
Your post #33:
If you believe in a universe with causality, its illogical to not believe in God.
I'm not sure I can put it into words... S.A.M. is stating that a Hypothesis without disproof is considered true, while Enmos and Iceaura are stating that without proof a Hypothesis is false. Is this correct?
The fact is that some here have been trying to tell you that ONLY one side is responsible for providing the evidence, and that is the side making the claims.
If you claim leprechauns exist, it isn't my responsibility to demonstrate you're wrong, but your responsibility to demonstrate that you're right. I can balk and call bullshit, but that doesn't preclude your responsibilities.
The basis of any testing in science is
Ho is true. Then try to use every means to prove it false.
You must falsify your hypothesis or it is assumed not false.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You just claimed that it was an UNSCIENTIFIC basis that you are giving here.
Q-it's not gibberish, it just seems to be thinking on a VERY high level, and is pretty interesting to follow, now that I've tried to sum it up
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Where did I say they were untestable ?? They ARE testable.
Oh yea, how do you figure ?
They are not falsifiable; you can only test them as true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
If you're talking science Ice and I are correct, if you're talking gibberish SAM is.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
They are too falsifiable.. if one of them wouldn't exist you wouldn't get any positive result while testing them.
Wtf ?
How do you falsify a physical law? I would be interested to hear it.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Name one..
I thought you offered a hypothesis, tested it for all results, examined the data and then attempted to form a conclusion... if I'm remembering correctly from childhood.
Pick one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science
I'll even offer you a null hypothesis
Ho: The phenomena in nature can be explained by natural laws because natural laws are written to explain phenomena in nature.
Refute this.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
You come up with convincing evidence for your theory.
by convincing evidence do you mean facts?
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Pick one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_laws_in_science
I'll even offer you a null hypothesis
Ho: The phenomena in nature can be explained by natural laws because natural laws are written to explain phenomena in nature.
Refute this.
And as long as they are accurate in their predictions they are not disproven. However, if convincing (extraordinary) evidence to the contrary comes to light, they will have to be adapted are a new theory will have to be developed entirely.
If scientists find that under some circumstances the law of conservation of energy doesn't hold, it will have to be revised.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
To back up your claims/theory.