Re: Today's blogs 2

>>Glenn,

Current demonstrable scientific predictions begin 10^-43 s after the Big Bang. This does not mean that anything presumable earlier is not scientific, only that the science has not yet been confirmed. The same holds for the Higgs boson. It has not been detected where some theoretical considerations place it. But this does not mean that there is no such particle or that the theory has to be dumped in favor of something new. It may be that the theory needs to be tweaked to predict a heavier particle, or that a new parameter needs to be considered. <<<<

 

Can I ask a simple question? Where did I say that the theory had been overthrown?  You are answering something I didn't say. I said, the current experimental evidence for it is negative.  And it is.  That means that to beleive in the multiverse which lacks experimental confirmation of some of its necessary conditions, is perfectly ok so long as one realizes that it is postulating the unobserved.  So, it is currrently of the epistemological status of metaphysics. WHEN that changes, then you can say it is scientific. 

 

Remember Science beleived in the ether in the 19th century. It too lacked experimental confirmation.  Until such confirmation is forthcoming, the multiverse is on par with unobservable leprechauns who omnipotently move every particle in the universe.

 

 

>>I note that the search goes on. <<

 

So, that doesn't make the multiverse scientific yet. The search for extraterrestrial life goes on as does the search for the YETI and the dinosaur in the Congo what's his name..

 

>>What a GUT requires has not yet been determined. If I adopted your claim, string theory and M-theory would be outside the bounds of science, as would probably be events falling under deterministic chaos. But what is not yet testable does not have to be metaphysical rather than scientific. I think you occupy an extreme position.<<<

 

You yourself said that asking whether universe or multiverse was outside of science but you haven't explained why you have a oneway street for the multiverse when you at the same time think it is scientific.  It will become scientific when we can observe it.  Not before.  And if asking for observational evidence for a position is considered an extreme position, then I am proudly an extremist.

 

People who don't demand evidence for what they believe are often called YECs.

 

 

>>There is a different problem exemplified in your insistence on absolute biblical accuracy and passing over my note on coneys (hyrax) and hares. Please put the pieces together.<<<<

 

Sigh, Dave do you have a short term memory problem. I have over and over said and I say it here again for about the 10th time with you that I don't beleive that every detail has to be correct. But if at the root of the issue there is no connection between what the Bible says and tangible reality then there is little reason to beleive that the Bible holds some really special stuff for us rather than believing that of the Book of MOrmon.  Or maybe we should believe every science fiction story we read. There has to be an impact a connection between revelation and reality.  If there is none, you can't possibly know that you are even in the correct religion. But like others you start with the assumption that CHristinaity is correct and work from there. That makes your posiiton fideistic in my book.