Any line of reasoning stemming from an untestable assertion, no matter how logical, is inaccurate by definition.
1
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
3 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.But maybe using infinity and zero in physics brings in mistakes because these assumptions are not only not scientifically justified, they are not scientifically justifiable. And this may play a role in our understanding of the cosmos or quantum mechanics. This is why some physicists, like George Ellis, Tim Palmer, and Nicolas Gisin have argued that we should be formulating physics without using infinities or infinitely precise numbers.
[backreaction.blogspot.com]
Word
Level 8
Dec 4, 2021
0
Word:
That kind of blows up the big bang scientific creation myth.
@Word If by that you mean the notion of a Creator causing the Big Bang, absofuckinglutely.
The idea of a First Cause is stupid anyway because Creationists insist that every effect has a cause, except God. If every effect has a cause, "every" would INCLUDE God.
We live in a world inhabited mostly by complete dipshits.
Try saying that to anybody who asserts the correctness of the Kalam cosmological argument.
anglophone
Level 9
Dec 4, 2021
1
No point, making such an assertion immediately renders the professor as being incapable of understanding logic.
@LenHazell53 Exactly!
Can you cite some examples? Just assume it relates to religion? And then, what is the implication that such reasoning is inaccurate? You mean false? How about string theory?
racocn8
Level 9
Dec 4, 2021
0
The reasoning may be accurate, but the conclusion can be false.
I don't need to cite an example.
If you can't test an assertion then you have no way to guage its accuracy. The only way you can determine accuracy is by some means of demonstrable measurement.
Ergo any untestable claim is inaccurate unless a means for testing its accuracy can be found.
If you insist
The ontological argument for the existence of god
The Velikovsky hypothesis
The Fred Hoyle panspermia postulation
Eriv von Daniken's Extraterrestrial Genetic Manipulation presupposition
Any other "Theory" that presents a conclusion as assumed correct prior to the gathering and testing of evidence.
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
Share this post
Categories
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.