This is like your "what laws of physics?" style of argument. You don't have a point as it never....."turns out to be wrong"..... without science. The science you say made the mistake, is the only way that CAN find out if it was a mistake. Something that corrects its own mistakes is worth much more than you are giving it credit for. The reality of that is obvious and it's all around you. Surely you're just horsing around. I hope so for your own sake.
It's already been said. There is no need for science to disprove God or other such mythical concepts, nor does it. Stephen Hawking is not musing. Maybe if youâd studied your science a little harder to âAâ perhaps, you wouldnât have said that. He is stating the universe does not need a Creator God, as it is quite capable to form from nothing, due to gravity and the laws of physics allowing such a thing. In regard to your other somewhat also extreme remark, there is nothing whatsoever to suggest dying is any more likely to provide information other than to the living. Specifically that someone is dead ! Why would you want to even suggest some kind of preferable knowledge to that which science provides is available in death or from a fictitious dictator deity, unless in the pursuit of fantasy? It provides no practical answer to anything, let alone how the universe actually works. It sure has nothing to do with a âBâ in quantum mechanics.
You presume too much. I enjoy/embrace science as much as any one here. But that does not change the fact that science/scientists do not have all the answers and even some of the ones they think they have turn out later to be wrong. That statement is not withholding due credit for science its simply pointing out an undeniable fact of science. A fact that seems to make you uncomfortable.
nope i dont get angry. i am a very controlled person. you are correct however. much of what i believed as a child has been falsified. by reason logic and evidence. isnt that what a freethinking person should strive for. to let reason and logic based on evidence be your guide to what is true in life instead of superstition based on emotions? how do we know beyond a considerable doubt? consider this. absolute agnosticism is a cop out. You are conceding that you are not competent enough to make a rational analysis based on fact. There is no absolute certainty in this world, yet it is safe to make general assumptions based on proven facts. I know there is no big foot, I know there are no wizards and witches or god, because I put my trust in the concept of verifiable evidence.
Science is something else all the time... they have to keep stretching the universes' age to keep their theories fitting.. they use logic to support their ideas that would get them an F grade in Philosophy 101 but they dress all their conjecture in the trappings of science and give themselves an A+, they control the venue for debate with vicious hiring practices in the Universities... match them up with the experts of the middle ages that were backed by the Church and you see the similar actions...
The issue that I have is that verifiable evidence often becomes falisfied. Take UFO's. Four people get out of that car in the middle of a cornfield. They see it, it is there. They come back to town and tell us. We listen, but suspect they have been sipping too much road soda. They get vocal about it, end up on Art Bell, or if it's a government built saucer, Alex Jones We have never found evidence of others in the universe so we must be alone, it is patently obvious, right? Now take a higher power, just because you have never experienced it does not mean that it is not there. Logically, it is really absolute atheism that is the cop out, because as I said before even a dog can sense things you can't. You have substituted one religion for other. A thinking man will remain skeptical but will continue to inquire.
Your point is becoming even more obscure. No one is saying science/ scientists do have the answers to everything...so.... what exactly? Is it that because science doesn't know everything, a mystical supernatural unkown beardy bloke may/did/could have created the universe? Is that what you're suggesting?
Given many Americans' hardcore religious beliefs, it would be political suicide to not at least pretend to believe in god in public.
Not necesarily, but it seems to be what you keep assuming I or anyone else with doubts about any scientific theories is suggesting.