Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Why atheism is against science

2»

Comments

  • #52
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Wicknight wrote: »
    You are slightly missing the point with the gravity example.

    You can test gravity all you like, that isn't going to "prove" that your model of gravity will still hold in 5 minutes, when you are standing at the top of your building. It doesn't "prove" that it will still work when you throw yourself off 5 seconds later either. I'm still pretty confident that you won't throw yourself off a building.

    You are working on the conclusion that because your model of gravity appeared accurate 5 minutes ago it will still be accurate 5 minutes from now.

    You cannot be certain of that to a very high level of accuracy. But you still aren't going to throw yourself off a building.

    Yep. Science is the business of falsifying (ie dis-proving), rather than proving, hypotheses (candidate models). If a hypothesis fails to be falsified despite rigorous tests, it becomes the standing theory. The key is that at that first step, a scientist should automatically discard any hypothesis which is non-falsifiable.


  • #53
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    WooPeeA wrote: »
    It may happen sooner than you think..

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Galactic

    :cool:

    Even Virgin Galactic won't have orbital flights until at least their third generation spacecraft. When SpaceShipThree starts taking passengers, what are the chances they'll let us drop a teapot out of the airlock?


  • #54
    AtomicHorror
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,888 ✭✭✭AtomicHorror


    Dades wrote: »
    Ye gods - don't do that!

    Given the arguments against the likelihood of there existing such a celestial vessel; by placing a teapot in orbit you would instantly prove the existence of God!

    By demonstrating that Man placed the Teapot in space........ that It's Metallic Glory is in fact the work of mortals:eek:..... we would prove that God is an invention of Man!!!!:confused::pac::pac::D


Advertisement