Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

but you don't deny that I spoke truth?

Their best defense is an offense. They cry 'ad hominem' when there's nothing else they can do; they won't even answer one simple question, but wants everybody else to answer their's. TNCFS

sure! Just keep stuck in your denial. It is ok. But one day.....

quahog says:
uh, excuse me, but you're the one stuck in denial, quahog, (well. denial, and conspiracy theories).

They also use the "GOP" defense , which is to accuse others of what they are all about. LIKE Quahog just accused YOU of denial.

     If you haven't noticed the question is one and the same - What is out there in the Hyperspace (if exists)?
     If anything in the metaphysics can exist (like for example Dark Energy, Dark Matter & the Hyperspace itself), what is the problem for some other, even more exotic things, to be able to exist as well (like Hyper-intelligence, Hyper-life, Hyper-time, hyper-laws of physics, parallel existence (of ourselves) ... in a parallel world, etc.) ... and the next question is: What evidence do you have about the abilities of the Big Bang to design the Hyperspace - when you cannot even answer whether the Big Bang is able to operate in the Hyperspace at all? ... not to mention that you don't have the vaguest idea of how the Hyperspace looks like.

Ok, well, if you really think so can you explain why you think that?

I am rather curious now.

     In order to prove that the belief in any hyper-intelligence is a conspiracy theory (hypothesis without any plausible justification) you will have to prove that:
     1. No intelligence can exist in the universe - but you will never be able to prove that, for our personal intelligence disproves it automatically.
     2. You have to specify with a precision up to the 18th digit after the decimal point what is out there, in the Hyperspace (if exists) - I don't see you doing that
     3. Even you succeed to refute the hypothesis of God as 'conspiracy theory' this does not make automatically the Big Bang and the Evolution the winners.
     You will need to disprove any other possibilities that may exist in-between ... and to explain our personal intelligence - what it actually is, how it appears upon birth, what happens with it after the death ... and how new copies of it appear with the expansion of the population on the Earth.
... and hardly after that and not before you may pronounce on which is 'conspiracy theory' and which is seven-star scientific theory.
     I don't know about you, but I personally would prefer to deliver my soul, when the time comes, to God rather than to the Institute of Psychotronics and Mind Control.

So, youd rather not deliver yourself to one made-up entity in favor of another made-up entity.

"My soul to heaven" are contradictions in terms. Since 'soul' is a religious concept that's never been proven to exist, the idea of 'heaven' is even more daunting~! From an unknown idea called 'soul' to an unknown destination.

I still believe 2+2 = 4. They are rational concepts with rational purpose and evidence.

But, soul and heaven? How does one prove them?

Well, it is proven beyond any doubt that life after 'death'' exists.

Proven by whom? And where is the evidence?

a) EFL tip of the day: The word "evidence" isn't countable. Try "pieces of evidence."

b) No, you only presented rhetorical handwaving, which I ignored to the extent that it deserved to be.

When/If you present any genuine evidence whatsoever for your supernatural, invisible entity, I guarantee that we'll treat it fairly by stacking it up against the mountains of scientific evidence that has been accumulated over the centuries. If your explanation is more internally consistent and makes more accurate predictions than the scientific cosmology, we'll have no choice but to accept it.

In this scenario, one thing is conspicuously missing: your evidence.

     By the time I was learning English it was evidences. BTW when somebody has neither evidences nor pieces of evidence about whatsoever he starts dealing with the etiology of the syntax and the interpretation of the linguistic constructs ... instead of dealing with the etiology of the Big Bang and the etiology of the Hyperspace ... for example.
     You are a free man on a free net and have the right to ignore whatever doesn't suit your 'scientific' bias, but the contradiction in the self and the contradiction with the laws of physics and math logic, and the detection of gaps of missing information (that S. Hawking proved with math formulas, which most of the physical community simply ignored) may be everything else but 'rhetorical handwaving' - proving feasibility of logical inference and proving the existence of physical interpretation of a math formula are not 'rhetorical handwaving'. They may seem handwaving only to the old generation scientists who are tin-hat and oil drills biased.
     Haven't you paid attention that most of the math formulas have negative or irrational solutions, that are ignored as a rule at the process of interpretation ... and nobody even tries to make any quantum interpretation of these, for example, because they are perceived as 'rhetorical handwaving'.
     The whole new science of Big Data is based on 'rhetorical handwaving' - analysis of statistical data for feasibility and plausibility, and for making predictions, etc. The cyberanalysis of the activities on the Internet is also based entirely on logical inferences and logical pieces of evidence ... you may call it 'rhetorical handwaving', you may call it as you wish, but such 'rhetorical handwaving' can ruin your life for decades on end. Anyway.
     Further, speaking what you really think and in what you are convinced on one hand, and speaking what is most convenient to the status quo on the other hand are very different things - and attitude to the world (that we are supposed to study) ... and BTW can be proved beyond any doubt by the methods of 'rhetorical handwaving'. I had the suspicion that you don't accept as evidence anything else besides the direct observations (from the radio telescope that you cannot even tell how much direct they actually are, and how 'direct' the Big Bang biased physical interpretation of the data might be), and that is why I asked you what do you accept as evidence ... unfortunately without any serious answer.

      ... in the very same way in which Hyperspace is proved ... without any evidence in the physical world.

You'll need to detail the contradictions, but even if they're there, that's not positive evidence for your supernatural hypothesis.

As for the gaps, that's a monotonous repetition of an obvious strawman fallacy. I've already demonstrated clearly that no scientists claims that scientific knowledge is complete, and furthermore to use gaps in knowledge to claim that the whole structure is errant is fallacious. The conclusioin does not follow from the premise. Nor do those gaps entail your supernatural explanation.

Postive evidence for your god-hypothesis. Got any?

Well, that's nice. We can just make up anything that makes us feel good then. Yay?

If you theists want to be interesting, much less convincing, you'll need to produce evidence at least as robust, falsifiable and plentiful as this:




http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.113.211102

There is soo much, if you look into it and you are not a denier, you will be convinced.

Do a search on Victor Zimmit.

Which hyerspace are you talking about (more than one has been proposed, and the word means something different in topology than in physics), and which one has been proven to be anything other than an abstract, speculative construct? Furthermore, which hyperspace has been proposed that is completely independent of observation all the way back to its foundations?