Obesity, skiny, tall, short, unibrow, hairy, flat figure

[Som1Lse]

Who is God tho? Where can i meet him?

Someone who could be living at the end of the path through a wormhole.

That is just a random guess, and about as good as somewhere in the belt of saturn, the center of the earth or another planet or perhaps he is in my attic. The thing is whatever guesswork anyone comes up with is about as useful and worthy of being believed as saying that there is a dragon in my garage.

The questions is, why not?

Because God is complete speculation, with literally zero actual evidence. Things that previously needed a god to explain how they worked (how did we come into existence? (evolution), how do the tides work? (the Moon's gravitational pull) etc.) have since been very well explained by science. Well most of them anyway, and the ones which have not (how was the world created? (big bang?)) are still not well explained by just adding a god into the mix.
Universe popped into existence/was always there vs. God popped into existence/was always there and made the universe pop into existence.
"Why not?" is a question someone asks in order to move the burden of proof away from themself.

Didn't every theory start with "some creative idea and ask scientist to prove it wrong" though?

No. For one thing an actual hypothesis needs to be somewhat well defined (which God is not), so you can actually test it, and see whether or not it holds up in reality.
Secondly the people who test it will (mostly anyway) be the people who came up with the hypothesis. Thirdly the ideas are usually not actually very creative, as they are usually based on our current understanding of reality (as in previously well established theories) as opposed to thousand year old books. When other scientists do look at others' hypotheses it is generally because it accommodates our current understanding of the world in a nice manner, that seems plausible, and surely it is possible that something which seems very implausible (like string theory) turns out to be a subject worthy of study, but it takes time for it to be recognized as such.

Speaking of wormholes:
Has any actual wormhole ever been sighted? Do we have any actual evidence of them? Or are they simply something which our current understanding of the universe does not seem to forbid, and MAY help explain certain phenomena?

[A-Man]

You need evidence, proofs, fundementals for theory.. exactly this kind of theories come up with God in first place, because people lacked knowledge. People believed for so many years Earth was flat and that everything circulate around us.. is it true tho?

You need proof to propose a theory? hmph..

We won't progress as group until we have believers as members.

I am not sure if that's what you mean to say, or if you're saying that we can't progress as long as we are believers. But if it's the latter, then I disagree here. Conflicting ideas and competition are the reason we have advanced so far in everything.

We can't just believe in God because we don't have answers YET. That's closed minded to believe in "nothing" (no evidence) because you can't answer certain question atm.

Most of what has been theorized of black holes are still theories btw.

You said at the end of wormhole. This is example of one of many wormholes and he is not at the end of it as you said he will be, is he?

He isn't. But that doesn't prove anything.

Edit @^: I am quite busy at the moment unfortunately, but do expect I will reply to you soon.

An admin could kindly split this as a separate thread.

[Rhino.Freak]

Speaking of wormholes:
Has any actual wormhole ever been sighted? Do we have any actual evidence of them? Or are they simply something which our current understanding of the universe does not seem to forbid, and MAY help explain certain phenomena?

I think that's exactly the point. Perhaps if we try to look at the "creator" as a concept or theory of physics we might get somewhere. Wormholes are pure speculation as well.

[Som1Lse]

You need proof to propose a theory? hmph..

You do indeed need evidence for a theory. There is a difference between theory and hypothesis.
Edit: Also proof vs. evidence.

[Marko]

You need proof to propose a theory? hmph..

fundementals.. Does God at the end of the wormhole has any evidence that is theory based on? That was what i was trying to say,... It's pure guessing and nothing else. Based on nothing.

I am not sure if that's what you mean to say, or if you're saying that we can't progress as long as we are believers. But if it's the latter, then I disagree here. Conflicting ideas and competition are the reason we have advanced so far in everything.

Progress is made by scientists who were willing to disagree with God if necessary. Eratosthenes was almost killed by believers after stating 100% truth that Earth is round object. Do we need that kind of persons?

Let me complete my words. We can't progress to our full potential as long as we have believers.
Just look at how many wars happened just because of different religions. People killed each other because their stupid and misleading beliefs. How many wars are still there because of different beliefs ?
Religion is huge problem in our society, huge.

No wonder any aliens haven't already visited us. We are primitive beings, kill each others, same race, because of something someone wrote down in bible thasaunds years ago which is total nonsense. Whole our history is nonsense. So many killed people for nothing.

Most of what has been theorized of black holes are still theories btw.

Theory based on our logic we can prove atm here on the earth, not theory behind our beliefs and possibilities. See the difference? It's huge.

You said at the end of wormhole. This is example of one of many wormholes and he is not at the end of it as you said he will be, is he?

He isn't. But that doesn't prove anything.

You are missing the point. When you came up with some theory, you are the one who should prove it affirmative, not me who should deny it by proofs because it's impossible. Let me ask you something?
I believe Batman really exsists.. now prove me i am wrong? You can't because that's not how it works.

[Rhino.Freak]

Religion and the concept of a creator that I believe are waay too different.
Religion is a way of living, it doesn't have much things to back what they imply but it's mostly to comfort the people in their bad times, teach disciple and gives message of peace and prosperity  (though the latter works in a reverse manner many a times)

I don't aim to discuss religion here, but the concept of a higher being that may have a hand in the creation of space, time is certainly an interesting thought. It might be too early to prove OR deny it's existance though. We barely know our universe.

[Marko]

so you are okay with comforting yourself that you will live infinitely in heavens after you die or you would rather know real truth of life, real purpose, our goals as humans?
I refuse to lie to myself, no matter how crappy and pointless life seems at the moments, i face the truth because that only matters. When we have already got chance to live let's use it to its full potential.

Even if there was a creator of everything (which is very unlikely because where that creator would come from?) why would he care about us, tinny dot of nothing in multiverse? Having that said why would we care about him then?.. i truly believe we are just coincedence of incredible huge universe and that there is even more intelligent life than ours out there somewhere considering how big it is and how old universe is, maybe even in our galaxy.

[STM1993]

...
Conflicting ideas and competition are the reason we have advanced so far in everything.
...

We can't just believe in God because we don't have answers YET. That's closed minded to believe in "nothing" (no evidence) because you can't answer certain question atm.

Most of what has been theorized of black holes are still theories btw.

I think you are still being confused about the meaning of the word "theory".

When you speculate an idea to explain something, it starts off as a hypothesis - this is what most confused people mean when they say 'theory'.

A hypothesis becomes a scientific theory/law(law & theory are interchangeable in this case) when the idea is thoroughly tested and has been consistently proven to be accurate. Conflicting ideas and competition drive progress, but an idea that doesn't have practical applications isn't very valuable. Because a theory is proven to be accurate and thus has practical applications, it has value and the reason why you get a Nobel prize for disproving it.

Merely saying "God did it" only begs the question of who God is and how he did it, and it would be ignorant to dismiss those concerns as some variant of "God is unknowable" since that is exactly the kind of attitude that silences conflicting ideas and competition that you said drives progress.

I'm not saying that our current theories are infallible, but I'm saying that they are our best models for what we know about the world around us and certainly more useful than the flimsy equivalent of "god/magic", and we would demand new theories if our current ones prove to be inadequate or wrong.

I think it is equally arrogant to claim to know for a fact that gods don't exist. I'm open to the idea that gods exist, but I've yet to hear anything beyond weak or unprovable propositions. There's the idea that maybe I should believe in god just in case, but which one? Not to mention I find a lot of religious teachings to be toxic or even contradictory. So rather than try to believe in a virtually unprovable/unknowable being, I would rather treasure the life I already know and live as though divine beings don't exist.

[Marko]

I think it is equally arrogant to claim to know for a fact that gods don't exist.

It depends on what you mean by the notion of God(s). If you mean like something that is beyond us that we will never be able to reach, then yes, God is symbol of that.. if you mean someone who created everything, including humans and takes care of them since day one as Bible says, then that's too ridiculous considering our knowledge atm.


I hope you don't find me in that arrogant category because, as you can see, i used "i truly believe" sentences only.

[bashscrazy]

I'll just leave this here (Learned about it yesterday watching Psycho Pass 2 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probatio_diabolica

In essence, the opposing statement's lack of proof makes the statement true in some sense. This connects with the idea that, while substantial evidence may prove the devil's existence, there is no evidence that denies the devil's existence; therefore, one cannot deny the devil's existence.