Zoomer, Clax,
et al,
In science, we have a philosophy (much like religions have a theology). Each of these have a
"sine qua non", a condition "
without which there is nothing." In the statement I made below, that condition is "testability."
The "Hand of God" has just as much validity as "String Theory."
Not to "science" it doesn't. There is no scientific theory (or assumption) that a god is responsible for the big bang. String theory, on the other hand, is an established (not proven) theory. So (to science), they don't carry the same validity (yet!).
(COMMENT)
Without "testability" or the ability to move the theory to the practical realm of the physical world, make a prediction, devise a test, conduct the experiment, and compare results to the prediction, --- if you cannot execute the "scientific method" --- that is the "sine qua non" --- THEN, it is not science. Putting aside Supersymmetry (an advanced Pythagorean concept), Maldacena Duality (an advanced Holographic concept), and attempting to measure Extra Dimensions (an advanced spacial awareness concept), all of which might further support the String Theory, but not prove it, no one can really figure out a way to test string theory.
The theory then becomes an very interesting intellectual endeavor that has some compelling logic to it, supporting documentation with it, but is only conceptual in its reality.
- HAND OF GOD: (Excluding the VMAT-2 Gene)
The theory of a Supreme Being (SB) is an undefined quantity. It is extremely hard to get anyone to agree on a set of universally accepted definition, characteristics and qualities of an SB. Because of this, no real Hypothesis can be put forth that can be developed, no real and valid Test of the un-agreed upon Hypothesis developed, and no real analyze of Data can be performed upon which to draw a universally accepted set of conclusions.
Again, the theory of an SB then becomes an very interesting intellectual endeavor that has some compelling logic to it, supporting documentation (theological doctrine) with it, but is only conceptual (requiring spiritual or supernatural constructs) in its reality.
There is a theory, that no
impasse remains forever. That at some point, all problems have a solution. At some point, it may be possible to test the untestable of today.
When I say that both are equally valid today, I mean that both are equally untestable in a fashion that produces the desired results; efficacious in a manner that becomes unassailable by any party to the debate.
Equally true is the fact that both concepts
(String Theory & Hand of God) containing premises from which the standing conclusions may logically be derived - rendering an intellectual understanding the individually can be understood, yet collectively arguable as to the details. Neither concept has been disproven because of the testability issue, rendering (again) a certain similar quality.
When one says: "So (to science), they don't carry the same validity (yet!)." It implies that one theory has an advantage in the "scientific method" process over the other. I would advance the idea that this is untrue; that there is NOT - by any objective measure - a means of consistently and accurately putting each theory to a test that gives one an advantage over the other
(excluding the Saint Thomas Aquinas challenge in "The Argument from Motion" or the derivative Aristotelian regressive argument on the origin of first motion in the universe). If we were not to exclude the challenges, then the "Argument of Motion" would ask, "except for the Hand of God, where did the energy of the "String" originate? That would give a decisive advantage to the opposing theory.
Most Respectfully,
R
