Bikerman writes:
Again this demonstrates that you don't understand the basics.
a) Science doesn't deal with the supernatural unless it is manifest in some way which can be tested. Those reported phenomena which can be tested have been tested and found to be illusion, invention or imagination.
That's because secular science has never made any attempt whatsoever to test supernatural phenomena. You, along with most secularists do not understand the basics of the supernatural phenomena which exists. You people chide me for not getting myself programmed into what you are convinced to be truth. By the same token, you appear to have a fobia about anything pertaining to the possibility of the supernatural.
Predictions of supernatural phenomena predicted thousands of years ago have been tested by fulfillement. On the otherhand predictions of science have only been ongoing to any significant extent for the past century. When they begin to fail, science simply changes modifys and updates with ever more complex hypotheses, understandable by relative few elites and defying the laws, dimensions and logic of what we observe and experience here in our universe.
b) What you seem to want is an explanation of physics which YOU can understand, without being prepared to do the bare minimum necessary - ie learn some basic maths.
By the same token I can argue that secular science wants an explanation of supernatural phenomenon, without being prepared to test and research evidence of supernatural phenomenon
Why do you think the universe should be simply explicable to someone who's only experience is on a small planet in a tiny corner of an unremarkable galaxy and who's brain was evolved to yell at apes about food and predators? Anything is complicated to those who are ignorant. The answer you seem to adopt is to wail that it cannot be so, because you don't understand it. Kids do the same thing quite a lot. The brighter ones learn that the problem is theirs, not the explanation's.
Heh! Why do you think that the only level of intelligence in the universe should be simply explicable relative to a tiny speck/planet in one of billions of galexies, each having billions of suns/stars?
For sure, we can agree that anything can be complicated to the ignorant. I regard your ignorance and that of most secularists equally as you regard mine relative to physics.
The question is
has the supernatural hypothesis failed? Imo, most of the participants of this thread are not qualified to answer that question, having devoted insufficient time, experience and study in testing the phenomena.
Bikerman writes:
Buzsaw writes:
Yet they have the audacity to call multiverses and string theories when, in fact, there's no model or ability to predict from these alleged theories.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is both - a model (actually several) and quite a few predictions to be tested. Again the problem is that you won't understand either if you insist that it is translated into a language best suited to jabber about the parochial experiences of an evolved ape.
Do you mean models like the supposedly
non-3D pancake like stack of disc shaped bubbles, etc? How is that a viable model for something non-3D, when the model depicted (like pancakes) is 3D?
Any models I have seen for the BB theory have been, in reality, 3D but physicists do the same thing. They flatten them all out to 2D or 4D, essenial making them flat illustrations on a piece of paper depicting what they believe in their heads; anything to obfuscate reality so as to
educate secularize the sheeple.
Bikerman writes:
Buzsaw writes:
I don't care if you have 4D, 10D or 11D layers, bubbles or whatever multiverses, like 3D, there is a separation known as a between. I'll never be convinced that I must toss out of my thinking all logic and reason so as to become scientific. I call that mysticism, magic, delusional and impossible.
And thus speaks the ignoramus through history. What thinking and logic? You display very little of either. You don't care. Those 3 words sum it up. You don't really want to learn because you are frightened that:
a) You are not capable of understanding
b) It might shake your current worldview
It isn't new - we see the same attitude in all recorded history, from the persecution of Socrates in Plato's account of the trial, through the imposed ignorance of the medieval Church, and, today, in the blind refusal to accept basic science from the creationists.
Now, Bikerman, what applies to the goose applies to the gander. I've revised your allegation so as to apply it to why secularists think the supernatural phenomena has failed.
And thus speaks the ignoramus through history. What thinking and logic? You display very little of either. You don't care. Those 3 words sum it up. You don't really want to learn because you are frightened that:
a) You are not capable of understanding
b) It might shake your current worldview
c) It makes you accountable to a higher intlligence/power
It isn't new - we see the same attitude in all recorded history, from the persecution of Socrates in Plato's account of the trial, Genesis fall of man, effected by Satan's deception, through the imposed ignorance of the medieval Church public education, and in the blind refusal to accept basic logic and realistic observable laws of physics from the secularists.
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
™ Version 4.2
(1)