But it's that sand... it's itchy and gets everywhere...

I think for this show, the sum is much greater than it's parts.

It reminded me of this

Right there with you. Although I didn't think this weeks episode was as strong as previous weeks, it was great to see Quorra and some of Paige's back story.

I think we have. The point is that to be religious or have a belief in god or higher power requires no scientific proof to the believer. It may to you, but it doesn't to them. To you this may show that a higher power or god is impossible as it cannot be tested by the scientific method. But that just shows a lack of…

You cannot have a scientific theory that is not falsifiable? So string theory or the untested theories I read every week on io9 are not scientific theory? The proposers are not scientists since they are not proposing something that has been or can be tested? The Higgs boson was proposed in 1962. So what was it up…

I never dismissed the need for them. My point was that you can have scientific theory without proof, that it is core part of the scientific method- that's how science moves forward.

:) The comments on this post are gonna be pretty confusing for someone just looking now lol.

I really like this show. I don't know why I really like this show, but I do.

22 years later I hear the perfect come-back. I can’t thank you enough! I will now relive that memory in mind with joy and sheer effrontery instead of cringing embarrassment.

No you don't. In science there are ten million untestable theories. Is string theory not science? I'm sure the proposers of it would say so. Can it be tested fully? No.

I had no clue whatsoever what I was doing when I did my dissertation for my degree. At my oral exam I was asked how many dimensions were involved in the calculations of the Roothaans equations I had used (WTF?). I said three.

Pure sophistry. You can’t prove or disprove the existence of a god or a higher being therefore there is no testable hypothesis. People who are religious have no requirement to do so as that is the meaning of faith.

You're knocking them outta the park today :D

Sorry couldn't resist :)

You stated that unless you are willing to give up preconceptions (e.g. belief in god) if the scientific data disproved those preconceptions then you can't be a scientist. So my question to you for the third time is what scientific data is there that disproves the existence of a god?

You didn't answer my question. What data is there that disproves a god, higher being, etc?

But you can't be a scientist if you don't disregard your preconceptions be it faith, god etc, if the data refutes it. And what data is there that refutes the existence of a god?

Perfect.

Uh... have two guns?