Maynman:

So anyone that claims to create the universe is a god?
You just need to claim it?

That's what people refer to as God generally and I don't know if such a thing exist.

Maynman:


How did you arrive at saying “aliens”.
It’s like me saying there’s flying lion, and until you disproved it, then flying lion exist..
What did you see before making the claim that “aliens exist”.

and how did you know that flying lions cannot exist?
Have you searched all planets in the universe?

Workch:
I didn't make a claim that aliens exist.

It seems you are not getting my point

I get your point.
What I’m saying is before you make a statement you should have evidence for it, not you saying I should disprove your claim.

Workch:
That's what people refer to as God generally and I don't know if such a thing exist.

But “god” is an English word, different people call different things god, what qualifies something to be a “god”?

Workch:
and how did you know that flying lions cannot exist?
Have you searched all planets in the universe?

It’s you that’s making the statement, it’s you that should prove it.

Maynman:


I get your point.
What I’m saying is before you make a statement you should have evidence for it, not you saying I should disprove your claim.

science is all about making informed statements called hypothesis and then to design an experiment to test those hypotheses.

It becomes a fact when that hypothesis has been proven true.
Without an experiment to falsify a hypothesis, you cannot say that the hypothesis is wrong or right.


Now, can you design a test to falsify a deistic god?

Workch:
science is all about making informed statements called hypothesis and then to design an experiment to test those hypotheses.

It becomes a fact when that hypothesis has been proven true.
Without an experiment to falsify a hypothesis, you cannot say that the hypothesis is wrong or right.


Now, can you design a test to falsify a deistic god?

Before you bring out the hypothesis you should first prove it works, if you can’t prove it then it doesn’t work, it’s not my job to prove if your hypothesis is wrong or right.
Is like saying you have cure for hiv, okay, show us you have it. Not you saying I should prove you don’t have the cure.


Now, can you design a test to defend your “deistic god”, after you do it then i can test your defence.

Maynman:

Before you bring out the hypothesis you should first prove it works, if you can’t prove it then it doesn’t work, it’s not my job to prove if your hypothesis is wrong or right.


Now, can you design a test to defend your “deistic god”, after you do it then i can test your defence.

Nope, in science, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who brought the hypothesis should test it.

Charles Darwin established the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection. He didn't prove it, other scientists tested it to prove it or disprove it. They found out that its true.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was a hypothesis he never tested, other scientists tested the idea by designing experiments, they found that it's true.

Stephen hawking formulated hawking radiation, it was tested and validated after he had died.


So yes, one can drop a hypothesis and another people invalidate it. Often times, this happens in science.

So now, can you design an experiment to invalidate a deistic god hypothesis?

Workch:
Nope, in science, it doesn't necessarily mean that the person who brought the hypothesis should test it.

Charles Darwin established the hypothesis of evolution by natural selection. He didn't prove it, other scientists tested it to prove it or disprove it. They found out that its true.

Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was a hypothesis he never tested, other scientists tested the idea by designing experiments, they found that it's true.

Stephen hawking formulated hawking radiation, it was tested and validated after he had died.


So yes, one can drop a hypothesis and another people invalidate it. Often times, this happens in science.

So now, can you design an experiment to invalidate a deistic god hypothesis?

Let’s start with charles darwin, what was his hypothesis? I’m sure he didn’t just give a blank statement, he showed workings of how he arrived at the hypothesis.

How did you arrive at a “deistic god”?

Maynman:

Let’s start with charles darwin, what was his hypothesis? I’m sure he didn’t just give a blank statement, he showed workings of how he arrived at the hypothesis.

How did you arrive at a “deistic god”?

Darwin proposed that species can change over time, that new species come from pre-existing species, and that all species share a common ancestor and this happens via natural selection.

Darwin himself didn't prove this claim. Other scientists years after him did and there were things that he proposed that were disproven as well along the line.

Workch:
But If A can cause B and B can Cause A, it does not mean that C cannot cause A and B without A and B being unable to Casue C.


Now your quantum physics analysis is limited in this knowledge

I don't understand what you are driving at.

Workch:
Darwin proposed that species can change over time, that new species come from pre-existing species, and that all species share a common ancestor and this happens via natural selection.

Darwin himself didn't prove this claim. Other scientists years after him did and there were things that he proposed that were disproven as well along the line

Darwin didn’t just make a statement and call it hypothesis, how did darwin arrive at the conclusions?
He didn’t carry out experiments?

Maynman:

Let’s start with charles darwin, what was his hypothesis? I’m sure he didn’t just give a blank statement, he showed workings of how he arrived at the hypothesis.

How did you arrive at a “deistic god”?

Darwin himself didn't prove his hypothesis, he had ideas from several species.

He couldn't prove that a species can change overtime through inheritance. He formulated the idea from his observations

Maynman:

Darwin didn’t just make a statement and call it hypothesis, how did darwin arrive at the conclusions?
He didn’t carry out experiments?

Darwin never provided evidence for evolution. Other scientists did it for him by testing his ideas.

Workch:
Darwin himself didn't prove his hypothesis, he had ideas from several species.

He couldn't prove that a species can change overtime through inheritance. He formulated the idea from his observations

Darwin didn’t just wake up one day and make a statement calling it hypothesis.
He observed, experimented and used others people ideas to arrive at its conclusion.

LordReed:


I don't understand what you are driving at.

What I am driving at is that, your analogy doesn't necessarily disprove the possibility of a frits cause.

I am not saying that a first cause necessarily exist but your analogy doesn't address that issue

Workch:
Darwin never provided evidence for evolution. Other scientists did it for him by testing his ideas.

Darwin didn’t just wake up and claim there is “evolution”? Or that’s what he did?
He didn’t explain how he arrived at it?

Workch:
Darwin never provided evidence for evolution. Other scientists did it for him by testing his ideas.

Darwin provided masses of evidence for his work, he didn’t make a blank statement calling it hypothesis.

Maynman:


Darwin didn’t just wake up one day and make a statement calling it hypothesis.
He observed, experimented and used others people ideas to arrive at its conclusion.

Do you know scientific procedures?

Seems like you are not aware. What's you are showing me are darins observations and not his experimenrs and tests.

1. You make observations by looking at specimens, this is what Darwin did.
2. Then you create hypothesis from your observations. Darin propose evolution by natural selection after observing all these specimens.

3. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Darwin never did this. It was done years after he died

4. Design a method and theory to explain your results. Darwin never did this, it was done after he died.



If you disgaree when show me the experiment specifically attributed to Darwin in science.
4.

Workch:
Do you know scientific procedures?

Seems like you are not aware. What's you are showing me are darins observations and not his experimenrs and tests.

1. You make observations by looking at specimens, this is what Darwin did.
2. Then you create hypothesis from your observations. Darin propose evolution by natural selection after observing all these specimens.

3. Design an experiment to test your hypothesis. Darwin never did this. It was done years after he died

4. Design a method and theory to explain your results. Darwin never did this, it was done after he died.



If you disgaree when show me the experiment specifically attributed to Darwin in science.
4.

Darwin provided tons of evidence for his hypothesis.
Where are the evidences of your deistic god?

Maynman:

Darwin provided masses of evidence for his work, he didn’t make a blank statement calling it hypothesis.

Darwin provided mass observations and not evidence just like lamarck did.

Other scientists like Friedrich Miescher, mendel, Watson and crick etc provided empirical and testable evidence for evolution with discovery of nucleic acids, their structures and genetics. Darwin didn't provide any empirical evidence.

Workch:
Darwin provided mass observations and not evidence just like lamarck did.

Other scientists like Friedrich Miescher, mendel, Watson and crick etc provided empirical and testable evidence for evolution with discovery of nucleic acids, their structures and genetics. Darwin didn't provide any empirical evidence.

He provided mass of evidence for his work, he didn’t make a blank statement telling people to disprove it.

Maynman:

Darwin provided tons of evidence for his hypothesis.
Where are the evidences of your deistic god?

No one believed darwin even in science until other scientist proved it with testable evidence.

Forget all these thing you are posting. Darwin made observations and it wa never a theory until he died

Maynman:

He provided mass of evidence for his work, he didn’t make a blank statement telling people to disprove it.

Ok, let me ask you a question.
What experiment did darwin design?
Tell me

In science, do you reach conclusions without an experiment?

If you go ot the other cksms about Einstein and Hawking, you will discover that those guys made claims that other proved

Workch:
No one believed darwin even in science until other scientist proved it with testable evidence.

Forget all these thing you are posting. Darwin made observations and it wa never a theory until he died

Darwin provided tons of evidence, it was those evidence that other scientists work on.
He didn’t wake up one day and say evolution exist without explaining how he arrive at it.

Maynman:

He provided mass of evidence for his work, he didn’t make a blank statement telling people to disprove it.

Darwin ideas was not proven in one day, it took years of gathering evidence. It was finally a scientific theory when he died.

Workch:
Ok, let me ask you a question.
What experiment did darwin design?
Tell me

In science, do you reach conclusions without an experiment?

If you go ot the other cksms about Einstein and Hawking, you will discover that those guys made claims that other proved

Didn’t he work on animals, travelling round the globe? And documenting his evidence.
He didn’t make a blank statement telling people to disprove it, he showed workings of how he arrived at it!

Maynman:


Darwin provided tons of evidence, it was those evidence that other scientists work on.
He didn’t wake up one day and say evolution exist without explaining how he arrive at it.

Darwin provided tons of observations. No evidence.

He wasn't even a scientists, he doesn't know much about experimental methods. It's fact

Workch:
Darwin ideas was not proven in one day, it took years of gathering evidence. It was finally a scientific theory when he died.

Who said it was proven in one day?
Darwin also didn’t wake up one day and say evolution exists, he showed workings and scientist tested that.

Workch:
Darwin provided tons of observations. No evidence.

He wasn't even a scientists, he doesn't know much about experimental methods. It's fact

Darwin was not to first to work on evolution, he didn’t wake up one day and claim there’s evolution.

Maynman:

Didn’t he work on animals, travelling round the globe? And documenting his evidence.
He didn’t make a blank statement telling people to disprove it, he showed workings of how he arrived at it!

His documentation are his observations and the proposal.

He never provide evidence for us to test. Other scientists after him designed experiments to test his proposal. Some passed, some failed.

Darwin never tested evolution in any lab. He never called any speicmen that was analyzed in a lab and repeated tested. Others did it

Workch:
What I am driving at is that, your analogy doesn't necessarily disprove the possibility of a frits cause.

I am not saying that a first cause necessarily exist but your analogy doesn't address that issue

It's not an analogy. Scientists can demonstrate that the idea of causality can be disrupted at the quantum level. If as is being surmised the big bang was a result of a disturbance in the quantum foam then it is possible there was no cause since the chain of cause and effect can be shown to be different from what we are familiar with. Now I am not saying that is what happened I am just saying that is a possibility we might need to get our heads around.