TF, at this point what he's proposed is a hypothesis, and it has not been promoted to the level of a theory. That doesn't mean it never will, but scientist are continuing to research it. As I mentioned the evidence is compelling, and all scientific attempts to date to falsify the hypothesis have failed. But just because research is on going, that doesn't justify your substitution of your "Magic Friend" hypothesis without providing compelling evidence of your own. That's how science works.
AS,
What are you talking about? ".... scientific attempts to date to falsify the hypothesis have failed..."
Obfuscaton at its best.
I also note that the term "Magic Friend" is used by you when you want to demean the participants in this discussion.
Lame...
So, do you agree that Krauss DID NOT show how the universe came from nothing?
You can't say it can you? You held him up as a respected "scientist" who proved that the universe came from nothing and it turns out he is a bookseller who tickles the ears of the uninformed and those hungry for an atheist hero.
TF
What you are really doing, is once more displaying your ignorance of the scientific method. Scientific laws and theories cannot be proven. They are maintained as long as observations support them.In a sense, there is no such thing as absolute truth in science. The validity of a scientific conclusion is always limited by the method of observation and, to a certain extent, by the person who made it.
If we extend that logic to the Universe from Nothing Hypothesis, such a universe can only come into existence if the resulting universe if flat, and neither concave nor convex. When the actual curvature of the universe was measured, it the answer had indicated a curved universe, this hypothesis would have been falsified. In other words, it would have been busted, done, over, and relegate to the trash heap of history. But that's not measured result, the hypothesis continues to be consistent with observation.
If we were going to extend the same standard to your God, how can one falsify your God? According to the rules of logic, that which cannot be falsified should be rejected. So if you cannot provide a method to falsify your God, it's logically valid to reject the hypothesis outright.
As for the use of the term "Your Magic Friend", I"m just drawing attention to your faulty logic...i.e. I don't know there for God, whom you have a personal relationship with, and can do MAGIC such as poof entire Universes into existence. It's also interesting to note you've failed to mention how, presuming the universe was created by magic, that it was your God, and not space fairies, interdimensional Unicorns, or a cosmic ham sandwich. Since they are all supernatural magic constructs, they are just as valid as your supernatural magic friend.
You didn't use logic or reason to get into this opinion, I cannot use logic or reason to get you out of it.
You cannot over estimate the unimportance of nearly everything. John Maxwell
