Why is there consistency of scientific beliefs, but inconsistency of religious beliefs in this world

[alal...@gmail.com]

Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.

But of course scientific theories must be falsifiable. And new theories can improve on old theories.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“God is an atheist”

[Luuk]

You heve just proven the existance of God, by claiming he is an atheist.

[alal...@gmail.com]

What kind of scientist are you, that you take this quote as proof?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“I will fear no evil”

[Luuk]

How did you come to the conclusion that i am a scientist?

[alal...@gmail.com]

So, what are you? You know what I am.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“The truth shall set you free”

[James McGinn]

Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.

Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.

[Luuk]

i'm just an 'random innocent reader', who is leaving this discussion
pretty soon.

[Sergio]

true.

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
>
> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.

String theory has not been empirically verified. Is it science, when it hasn’t been empirically verified? Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Science, ain’t a perfect science”

[Odd Bodkin]

<alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
>> apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a
>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
>>
>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
>
> String theory has not been empirically verified. Is it science, when it
> hasn’t been empirically verified?

No. It has to be testable.

Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified.

> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?

String theory does.

>
>
> Abhinav Lal
> Writer & Investor
>
> “Science, ain’t a perfect science”
>

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> >> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
> >> apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a
> >> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
> >>
> >> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
> >
> > String theory has not been empirically verified. Is it science, when it
> > hasn’t been empirically verified?
>
> No. It has to be testable.
>
> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified.
>
> > Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
>
> String theory does.

What testable predictions has string theory made?

How do you test science about the fate of the universe?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Imagination is more important than knowledge”
— Albert Einstein

[Odd Bodkin]

<alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
>>>> apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a
>>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
>>>>
>>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
>>>
>>> String theory has not been empirically verified. Is it science, when it
>>> hasn’t been empirically verified?
>>
>> No. It has to be testable.
>>
>> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified.
>>
>>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
>>
>> String theory does.
>
> What testable predictions has string theory made?

Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
between branes, and several others. Try googling.

>
> How do you test science about the fate of the universe?

That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out.

[Arindam Banerjee]

Religious beliefs are beyond the scope of experimental verification on the objective scientific basis. To pretend they are is dishonesty. Such dishonesty comes naturally to atheists.

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
> >>>> apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a
> >>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
> >>>>
> >>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
> >>>
> >>> String theory has not been empirically verified. Is it science, when it
> >>> hasn’t been empirically verified?
> >>
> >> No. It has to be testable.
> >>
> >> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified.
> >>
> >>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
> >>
> >> String theory does.
> >
> > What testable predictions has string theory made?
>
> Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
> between branes, and several others. Try googling.

I don’t need to. To the best of my knowledge, string theory is not testable within our current abilities.

>
> >
> > How do you test science about the fate of the universe?
>
> That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
> assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out.

So, do we have any clarity on the fate of the universe?

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“The great unknown”

[Odd Bodkin]

<alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
>>>> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
>>>>>> apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a
>>>>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
>>>>>
>>>>> String theory has not been empirically verified. Is it science, when it
>>>>> hasn’t been empirically verified?
>>>>
>>>> No. It has to be testable.
>>>>
>>>> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified.
>>>>
>>>>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
>>>>
>>>> String theory does.
>>>
>>> What testable predictions has string theory made?
>>
>> Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
>> between branes, and several others. Try googling.
>
> I don’t need to. To the best of my knowledge, string theory is not
> testable within our current abilities.

That is incorrect. That is precisely why I suggested googling.

Don’t go by what you THINK you know.

>
>>
>>>
>>> How do you test science about the fate of the universe?
>>
>> That’s not the part you test. You test the other parts of the theory and
>> assume that the other implications of the theory will then pan out.
>
> So, do we have any clarity on the fate of the universe?

Some, yes. Even without string theory. That of course will never be put to
direct test.

[pnal...@gmail.com]

McGinn wrote...

< Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.

Like, for example, you own scientific beliefs, right Jim? Not verified, with zero evidence.

[Jeff-Relf.Me]

The Copenhagen Interpretation still dominates: Shut up and calculate;
-- stop making ABSURD assumptions about Schrodinger's cat.

Otherwise, you'll be led down the science FICTION path,
like multi-worlds and superstring theory.

Truth can be crippling, and falsehoods can be liberating,
-- science FICTION pays better than the REAL deal;
hence Christianity, Marxism, and other apocalypse cults.

The hot dense sun evaporates into the cold vacuum;
the sun is losing 4.3 million tons/second.

Eventually, all eXergy will be consumed away, replaced with entropy,
leaving us with a uniform heat bath that has all of the energy,
but none of the "eXergy" ( a type of energy that can do physical work,
force * distance ).

Einstein's Cosmological Constant ( 1.11 * 10^−52 / Meters^2 ) tells us
that outer space is growing EXPONENTIALLY, gravity is dying off;
-- i.e. the "Heat Death" predicted by Lord Kelvin, 1852,
is the most likley outcome.

[alal...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, January 1, 2019 at 10:06:33 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, December 31, 2018 at 6:41:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Sunday, December 30, 2018 at 5:16:15 PM UTC+5:30, Odd Bodkin wrote:
> >>>> <alal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, December 29, 2018 at 9:57:20 PM UTC+5:30, James McGinn wrote:
> >>>>>> Because in this world, scientific theories are empirically verified, and
> >>>>>> apply throughout the earth and more. While religious beliefs are a
> >>>>>> product of their time and place, and are not verified with rigour.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Not all scientific beliefs have been verified.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> String theory has not been empirically verified. Is it science, when it
> >>>>> hasn’t been empirically verified?
> >>>>
> >>>> No. It has to be testable.
> >>>>
> >>>> Look up when the neutrino was hypothesized and when it was verified.
> >>>>
> >>>>> Aren’t scientific theories required to be able to make testable predictions?
> >>>>
> >>>> String theory does.
> >>>
> >>> What testable predictions has string theory made?
> >>
> >> Lots! There are tests designed for curled up dimensions, leakage of gravity
> >> between branes, and several others. Try googling.
> >
> > I don’t need to. To the best of my knowledge, string theory is not
> > testable within our current abilities.
>
> That is incorrect. That is precisely why I suggested googling.
>
> Don’t go by what you THINK you know.

I know that string theory has not been verified.

I have already read that it is not verifiable.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Truth is under attack”

[mitchr...@gmail.com]

The truth is meant to be known. Hell was always the problem.
Spinoza canceled it out by believing into an impersonal God.

Einstein was the same. His impersonal God was still God.
At his end he said the atheists were his problem all along
and didn't know it.

God creates gravity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[Luuk]

On 2-1-2019 05:50, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> God creates gravity.

creates? or created

If beleive is that this is an ongoing process, than i agree with creates.

[James McGinn]

No, I was thinking of your magical substance, "cold steam."

[Odd Bodkin]

That’s true but I already gave you several examples of theories that went
unverified for decades.

>
> I have already read that it is not verifiable.

And that’s wrong.

[James McGinn]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2019 at 5:46:28 AM UTC-8, Odd Bodkin wrote:

> >> That is incorrect. That is precisely why I suggested googling.
> >>
> >> Don’t go by what you THINK you know.
> >
> > I know that string theory has not been verified.
>
> That’s true but I already gave you several examples of theories that went
> unverified for decades.
>
> >
> > I have already read that it is not verifiable.
>
> And that’s wrong.

String theory is just a serious of conjectures. It is not falsifiable.

You can't Google truth, you moron.

James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes

[alal...@gmail.com]

It is not currently verifiable.

Abhinav Lal
Writer & Investor

“Healthy debate is necessary for human progress”

[Odd Bodkin]

Again, I’ll remind you that neutrinos were proposed in 1930 but were not
verifiable at that time and weren’t until 1956. The Higgs boson was
hypothesized in 1964 and was not verifiable at that time, and in fact was
not verified for 50 years. Gravitational waves were predicted in 1916, and
it took 100 years to verify their existence.

It is the more common state in physics that theories predate experimental
confirmation.

This is not a mark against them.

[James McGinn]

Meaningless. Vague rhetoric. Only church lady science groupies can be convinced by this.

[Odd Bodkin]

Or intelligent people with some familiarity with how science works, who are
not basement-dwelling trolls staving off irrelevance by declaring
themselves geniuses.

[James McGinn]

LOL. You got nothing you vague nitwit.