Ehh, I am not so sure about that. Supersymmetry theory is not proven, it has parts that are just hypotheses - is it pseudo-science then? I agree that theories that rely a lot on hypotheses like the Superstring theory are on the gray area between science and pseudo-science, though.
Why is 3 a magic number? We have probability theory to tell us how many times we need to run the experiment to be confident in the result. This is what every scientist does so everyone has already taken your concern into account.
Three, it was just a throw. Don't believe everyone has taken that into account, they're humans. The weakest link is always the human.
A native English speaker, who doesn't recognise such a structure?
Amongst the scientists, to name it. There was a small surprise that put the Supersymmetry theory in doubt, but the theory's creators just disregarded it saying "(it) was actually expected".
How in the hell is it "actually expected" if it's against the hypothesis? Trying to bend the theory much?
See it here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-20300100
Yes, I know there are different versions of the Supersymmetry theory. But was that version created before or after the experiment, they could just have pulled that to disregard the conflicting discovery, don't you think?
However long it took to generate conclusive evidence that they're wrong.
So they'd be running the experiment until some other research group finds contradicting evidence?
If they're stubborn, they should be scientists [sic], and probably wouldn't be. Who would be reading all their papers if they made no logical conclusions or were found to be manipulating data? They would becomes jokes in the greater scientific community.
Oh, there's been people like that. For example, the leading chemists opposed Lamarck's watertight evidence of chemical elements in favour of the old four-element theory in the late 18th century.
Quantum mechanics were thought to be completely a ridiculous hypothesis by the competing scientists, as well as x-rays.
Everyone is stubborn to an extent, and people like to hold on to their creations.
We might found out if we looked.
But then, how how? And how before that?
There is always the question of "How?"
It's not even an answer, we don't know is the current answer. I'm just trying to point that claiming that science has backed itself into a corner isn't accurate. We're not left with saying either everything came from nothing or magic made it. We don't know, we need to keep looking and hypothesizing answers like I did.
Indeed. But scientifically, we should never believe in these hypotheses.
Why I always write for keeping religion/belief/faith away from science itself.
The scientists are free to believe what they want as long as that doesn't conflict with their work. So are others too.
It always was is far more plausible than the other two, though it's not exactly fleshed out. There is no evidence for God, and "42" doesn't even make sense. If people want to have personal views fine, I don't care to have one. I'd rather just know.
Under
what evidence it is more plausible?
Prove before you claim, please,
unless it's only your belief. To my knowledge, it has no more proof than the two other. There is no evidence for the existence having always been. In fact,
according to current evidence and research, we don't know anything before the Big Bang (which itself is also partially a hypothesis too).
Also, you seem to have a personal view that is based on belief. There is no proof the existence has been forever, but
if you think it is more viable than others, you
believe so. Hence a personal view/belief.
42 is the answer to the question in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. Sadly they don't know what was the question.
---
👍
This God looks like a loving, caring father figure for humankind.
I'll quote myself.
So I'm supposed to get my morals from a book that advocates bashing babies' brains out? Riiiigghhttt.
Nope. What has morals to do with believing in God? Only fundamentalist Jews and fundamentalist Christians think they have to follow the Bible literally.
Although, the New Testament has some pretty good ethics. So is the main line in the Old Testament, although some of the punishments are a bit cruel and then there are those weird stories. They both have their ethics based on truth being the ultimate principle, after all.
Remember that the Old Testament was written around 2500-3000 years ago, and in the Israelites' society obedience was vital for their survival. It's a law book for a slightly nomadic people that was surrounded by other, hostile peoples.
Worst mistake people can do is to not understand the context something is written at. This applies to fundamentalists too, for example they keep whining about there not being under-age sexual relationships mentioned in the Bible and that way they try to moralise modern people. Sure, the Israelites became of age at 13 years at the time the Old Testament was written. Context matters.
---
For Homeforsummer's post below:
About 70% of what you addressed here is answered in the conversation between me and Exorcet, check there, I'm not going to write it again.
The remaining 30%:
Incidentally, I'm not entirely sure matter and energy for nothing is a physical impossibility. My grasp of quantum theory is very limited, but I do recall it's possible for particles to literally appear from nowhere, and disappear in the same way.
Yeah, they do appear and disappear, but they always exist. The appearances and disappearances have a correlation AFAIK.
Very weird indeed, but not appreciably more weird than a big, equally infinite dude in the sky making everything come into being...
I never said it has proof. Hence it is belief. Existence from the infinity is easier though to attribute to something that is all-powerful and all-capable (except for hot porridge vs. all-capability paradoxes and such), instead of random matter.
