Can you stop being so personal? I am telling you what physicists do, and most of what they do is postulating unobservables. Why the hell do you blame me for stating the ******* facts? This is standard textbook material. Do you really want to play this game?
The masturbating god theory is a joke in reference to another post from a different poster.
So calling me naive with no knowledge of science or philosophy is your polite method of replying, is it? That's not being personal?
They, scientists, dont postulate
You are making claims without any foundation in facts. For example "a mother universe" where did she come from? is she in any scientific papers you might like to refer to or where else you gathered this information. What game exactly are we playing ?
I say your view is naive. Not you. Happy?
what about Electrons, quarks, dark matter??
What game are you playing? Do you dispute that science postulate unobservables?
I stated this 3 times now. I lean it at a class in philosophy of science class. I don ` t know what is your problem. Do dispute the mother universe hypothesis, or do you dispute that science postulates?
No im not happy with your remarks they are personal and I resent your attitude.
Electrons,quarks, dark matter have evidence to support their existence, where if any is there for your universe baring mother?
To postulate you must have adequate reasoning or evidence, you dont just conjure up things from nothing. You must be prepared to be questioned or denounced. I dont doubt science postulates but your not postulating, your inventing
Scientific theories claim, or at least seem to claim, that the universe is
populated by a host of entities that we cannot observe in any obvious sense: we have
genes, quarks, curved space-time, the superego (if you think psychoanalysis is a
science) etc. etc. Do we (including scientists) have any right to believe in such
entities? Scientific realists say yes - such entities really do exist - while anti-realists
say no. There are three basic positions which one can adopt on this issue:
Realism: We have very good reason to believe that the unobservable entities
postulated by well-confirmed theories exist.
Well, i am not happy with your remarks being so general, and typical nonsense of someone that does not know anything regarding this matter. I see that giving you the facts don` t shut you up. I wonder what would.
The more important question is how many ******* times do you want me to repeat it for you. You can take a course in philosophy of science, or you can listen to me. Electrons, quarks are never "observed directly". They are postulated in physics to explain what is observed. I am stated this for how many times?
Damn it. The "evidence" is indirect. The existence of quarks, and dark matter are never observed "directly", but their existence, and property help explain what is observed.
I said this for at least 10 times. Explain to me what is your problem?
You continue your abuse as if you had something of value to say but in fact all you have is some silly notion that there is a mother universe giving rise to this one. Electrons may not be seen but there is sufficient scientific evidence to say they do as there is for dark matter. With your silly idea on postulating, the devil and all his angels are factual and there is no need of proving the pink unicorn is the creator of all we see. You can ......... say it as many times as you please but your pregnant mother is your imagination and nothing more.
The issue of scientific realism has been one of the central hinges of debate within the philosophy of science for the past thirty years. The central issue is this: Do scientific theories and hypotheses refer to real but unobservable entities, forces, and relations?
What i say is in academic journals. It is in textbooks. The sources are the pdf i gave you. What the hell do you have? You have nothing. You have a big fat nothing. high school graduate?
You want evidence? Here:Is Our Universe Inside Another Larger Universe? | Universe Today
Did i shut you up?
How about this:What is scientific realism
I have sources to back up what i say. You have ****. Sorry. I win, and you lose. It looks like imagination is better.
I think you have conclusively proven that debate with you is impossible. I refuse to debate with abuse.
What was God doing before he created the world? The philosopher and writer (and later saint) Augustine posed the question in his "Confessions" in the fourth century, and then came up with a strikingly modern answer: before God created the world there was no time and thus no "before." To paraphrase Gertrude Stein, there was no "then" then.
Modern astro physics state that nothing happened before the big bang, because the BB was a singularity that contained all of existence, before it emerged to become our beautiful universe