God: a failed hypothesis or something more?

[T_aquaticus]

Getting out of this circularity is beyond my meager intellect. Perhaps you have a philosophy of science that the rest of us do not.

Let’s say that there are basic physical constants that are variable through space and time. What we find is that we get very different results from the Fermi accelerator in Texas and the CERN accelerator in France, even under identical conditions. We also observe that the results change through time at both locations. Scientists are not able to make predictions and test them at either location. Science doesn’t work.

This is the situation I am talking about.

[T_aquaticus]

You obviously did not get it in 2nd grade that to use the same word to describe the similarity of concepts is different from a situation were words of different meaning arrive at similar spelling of pronunciation.

I learned enough to know that if someone says they are grounded it doesn’t necessarily mean that electricity will flow through them.

Just because we use the same word to describe two different things does not mean that they are the same thing in every attribute.

[marvin]

There is hope you make it to third grade then

[GJDS]

The physical constants are just that - I am disappointed by these remarks - I think you can do better than making these remarks.

[T_aquaticus]

The physical constants are just that - I am disappointed by these remarks - I think you can do better than making these remarks.

Then I guess you will have to be disappointed. All I can do is try to explain myself.

[GJDS]

I understand - I guess I was anticipating a more detailed and perhaps challenging argument from you on what we understand as laws of nature. In any event it is always stimulating intellectually to argue from opposing positions.