25 Jul '08 13:03>1 edit
Originally posted by Zahlanzi…well how rational do you call someone who calls superstring theory possible (something that hasn't even properly been theorized yet) …
well how rational do you call someone who calls superstring theory possible(something that hasn't even properly been theorized yet) yet the existence of god impossible? they are both theories that have not been proven wrong(or right). hints suggest that superstring theory might be proven in the past or at least after working on it. hints likewise suggest th ...[text shortened]... ntil proven real. but likewise you can't assume it is impossible also until proven impossible.
Providing it predicts what we already know to be true from scientific experiments and observations and providing there is as yet no evidence that contradicts superstring theory, then it is perfectly rational to say superstring theory is “possible” (which is not the same as saying it IS true or even the same thing as saying it is probably true)
By the way, very few scientists would claim that “superstring theory is true” since virtually everyone agrees that it is a highly speculative theory that is difficult (if not impossible) to verify even if it was true. Many scientists would say it is so speculative that it is almost certainly false! By comparing this highly speculative theory with the belief that there is a god, are you implying that the belief that there is a god is also a highly speculative theory that is as untrustworthy as superstring theory?
…yet the existence of god impossible? …
Correct. Not literally “impossible” but rather has a vanishingly small probability of being true according to the criterion that we must judge the probability of an existential claim being true to be vanishingly small unless there is sufficient evidence in support of the existential claim to judge otherwise.
…they are both theories that have not been proven wrong (or right).…
Correct.
…hints suggest that superstring theory might be proven in the past or at least after working on it. …
I think if it had been proven correct at sometime in the past then the person that proved it would almost certainly have publicised it by now and then we would all regard superstring theory as a fact right now. Since that hasn’t happened, it is reasonable to assume that it has never been proven. The problem with superstring theory is that nobody knows even how to prove it so I find the idea that somebody may have proved it in the past as highly dubious.
…hints likewise suggest that god exists. …
What kind of hints are you referring to here? Can you give a specific example of just such a “hint “ that doesn’t have some other simpler explanation?
… sure it is not scientific to assume something is real until proven real. …
Correct. The existential claim that there is a god is an example of that.
… but likewise you can't assume it is impossible also until proven impossible.…
Correct. But you can have rational reasons to assume that it has a vanishingly small probability of being true. For example, hypothetically, if somebody seriously claims that there exists a Santa , would you not regard it as rational to assume that there is a vanishingly small probability of Santa existing despite the fact that “nobody has proven there is no Santa” ?