Author Topic: Dark Matter and Dark Energy  (Read 4064 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Graybeard

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 6701
  • Darwins +533/-19
  • Gender: Male
  • Is this going somewhere?
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #29 on: July 27, 2012, 04:49:49 PM »
When modern science came along and gave us more facts to work with, and thus a far better theory to work with (which is that the universe exists naturally), all notions of God as a useful explanation were summarily destroyed.

Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist. Among other things, when it can thoroughly demonstrate how matter from non-matter and energy from non-energy and life from non-life came into being, God's existence remains intact.
That will be done before godbotherers can demonstrate why God is not subject to time and can poof matter out of nothing... or perhaps you have a theory on that one?
Nobody says “There are many things that we thought were natural processes, but now know that a god did them.”

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #30 on: July 27, 2012, 05:16:01 PM »
... when it is based on nothing more than a hypothetical.

If you'd bothered to read or understand why dark matter was hypothesizes, you would not have said this.

It explains an observation.  Mathematically, it fits.  Where is the problem?  What is your objection?

My original post does not object to anything. It simply demonstrates that many in the non-theist community will out right dismiss the existence of God due to a lack of observational evidence but will embrace a scientific hypothesis absent the same level of observational evidence. It seems to be a double standard. In other words, if I said that God’s being may consist of “exotic” “invisible” particles, why is that irrational or indicative of delusion?

I was simply interested in seeing if anyone concurred with the observation and, if not, explaining how it differs?

If you believe there is a possibility that God may exist, then this really doesn’t apply to you.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #31 on: July 27, 2012, 05:21:23 PM »
... when it is based on nothing more than a hypothetical.

If you'd bothered to read or understand why dark matter was hypothesizes, you would not have said this.

It explains an observation.  Mathematically, it fits.  Where is the problem?  What is your objection?

My original post does not object to anything. It simply demonstrates that many in the non-theist community will out right dismiss the existence of God due to a lack of observational evidence but will embrace a scientific hypothesis absent the same level of observational evidence. It seems to be a double standard. In other words, if I said that God’s being may consist of “exotic” “invisible” particles, why is that irrational or indicative of delusion?

I was simply interested in seeing if anyone concurred with the observation and, if not, explaining how it differs?

If you believe there is a possibility that God may exist, then this really doesn’t apply to you.
what is god?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #32 on: July 27, 2012, 05:30:55 PM »
Science has certainly destroyed any need for god as an explanation for anything.

That's a very strong statement to make when science hasn't reached a point when it can explain life from non-life, matter from non-matter, and energy from non-energy. To completely dismiss other possible explanations (including God) as the cause is somewhat sad. Personally, I would never want to be boxed in like that because you are making this statement based on faith that science is exclusively capable of providing all of the answers to highly critical questions.

Quote
If you are going to claim your invisible, undetectable god who does nothing is somewhere in the universe, you can put everything that you can't disprove in there, too: Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Shango, Og the Volcano Spirit, Count Chocula, Santa Claus, Mr. Spock, Barbarella, Jack's Magic Beans, Reasonable Republicans.

You are only assuming that God "does nothing." Simply because He does not behave as you would have him behave does not nullify His existence.

Quote
They are all invisible, or don't want to be seen because that would mess up your faith, or only act through human beings, or can't be detected by skeptics, or are on an extended vacation. Or nonexistent and imaginary.

Not sure I understand your point.

Quote
Once you know that your parents got your Xmas presents from the store (or not if you are a JW kid) do you still believe that Santa brings them on a sleigh? Why would you?

Santa does not exist; therefore, God does not exist? An understandable analogy but very weak in demonstrating anything.

Quote
Of course, Santa could still somehow be magically responsible for the presents, and nobody can prove that he isn't involved. But why put him into the equation when you have a perfectly reasonable non-magical explanation? That's what I don't get. What is the point of adding in a god?

As I have said elsewhere, God and Christianity logically satisfies my need to understand:

How we got here.
Why we’re here.
Where we’re going.
How the universe and ‘life’ came to be.

In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe point to an Intelligent Designer. The TOE and the various hypotheses about abiogenesis attempt to explain this but comes up way too short to convince me. There are way too many assumptions and floating variables behind crucial areas of it.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #33 on: July 27, 2012, 05:33:24 PM »
That's a very strong statement to make when science hasn't reached a point when it can explain life from non-life, matter from non-matter, and energy from non-energy. To completely dismiss other possible explanations (including God) as the cause is somewhat sad. Personally, I would never want to be boxed in like that because you are making this statement based on faith that science is exclusively capable of providing all of the answers to highly critical questions.

As a religious fanatic, are you not, by definition, "boxed in"?
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #34 on: July 27, 2012, 06:00:57 PM »
what is god?

I only believe in the God of the Bible. Is that the god your question pertains to?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #35 on: July 27, 2012, 06:14:51 PM »
As a religious fanatic, are you not, by definition, "boxed in"?

Absolutely not. If you could providence irrefutable evidence that God does not exist, I would gladly accept it.  The poster I was responding to indicated that science "has certainly destroyed any need for God as an explanation for anything." That person presupposes God's non-existence and has, therefore boxed herself into a worldview void of any consideration for the possibility she may be wrong....even though she could be. That is quite contrary to how I view things...even as a Christian.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #36 on: July 27, 2012, 06:18:45 PM »
When modern science came along and gave us more facts to work with, and thus a far better theory to work with (which is that the universe exists naturally), all notions of God as a useful explanation were summarily destroyed.

Modern science is light years away from ever proving that God does not exist. Among other things, when it can thoroughly demonstrate how matter from non-matter and energy from non-energy and life from non-life came into being, God's existence remains intact.
That will be done before godbotherers can demonstrate why God is not subject to time and can poof matter out of nothing... or perhaps you have a theory on that one?

I do not find myself compelled to seek out identifiable processes for how God does everything He does. If He is who I believe Him to be, I gladly and humbly concede that I am simply incapable of understanding all of His thoughts and His ways.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #37 on: July 27, 2012, 06:23:48 PM »
As a religious fanatic, are you not, by definition, "boxed in"?

Absolutely not. If you could providence irrefutable evidence that God does not exist, I would gladly accept it.  The poster I was responding to indicated that science "has certainly destroyed any need for God as an explanation for anything." That person presupposes God's non-existence and has, therefore boxed herself into a worldview void of any consideration for the possibility she may be wrong....even though she could be. That is quite contrary to how I view things...even as a Christian.

The way god is defined in your belief system, and the character of its worship and indoctrination system, seem to make your comment about "irrefutable evidence" of non-existence and "gladly" accepting such a contingency, disingenuous.
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #38 on: July 27, 2012, 06:24:32 PM »
Oh, and the best part?  Physicists may be wrong.  To the best of our knowledge, this is what we know - but if they're proven wrong?  They'll gladly toss the theory out.

Can you say that last about God?

Yes, I can. As I just mentioned in another post, if irrefutable evidence is presented proving that God does not exist, I would, with great sadness, terminate my beliefs.

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #39 on: July 27, 2012, 06:25:02 PM »

If He is who I believe Him to be, I gladly and humbly concede that I am simply incapable of understanding all of His thoughts and His ways.

Hi BS. Fellow theist here.

I aim for glad and humble, but I rarely get there.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #40 on: July 27, 2012, 06:27:28 PM »
As a religious fanatic, are you not, by definition, "boxed in"?

Absolutely not. If you could providence irrefutable evidence that God does not exist, I would gladly accept it.  The poster I was responding to indicated that science "has certainly destroyed any need for God as an explanation for anything." That person presupposes God's non-existence and has, therefore boxed herself into a worldview void of any consideration for the possibility she may be wrong....even though she could be. That is quite contrary to how I view things...even as a Christian.

The way god is defined in your belief system, and the character of its worship and indoctrination system, seem to make your comment about "irrefutable evidence" of non-existence and "gladly" accepting such a contingency, disingenuous.

Yes, "gladly" is not the right word. It would be "sadly." Still, I do not understand why my position seems disingenuous.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #41 on: July 27, 2012, 06:30:10 PM »

If He is who I believe Him to be, I gladly and humbly concede that I am simply incapable of understanding all of His thoughts and His ways.

Hi BS. Fellow theist here.

I aim for glad and humble, but I rarely get there.

Hello majicmiles. Welcome to the discussion....(unless you were just chiming in to say hello??).

Offline magicmiles

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2947
  • Darwins +180/-73
  • Gender: Male
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #42 on: July 27, 2012, 06:33:21 PM »
Yeah, just saying Hi. For now.
Go on up you baldhead.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #43 on: July 27, 2012, 06:36:24 PM »
Yeah, just saying Hi. For now.


Okay. Thanks for stopping by to say hello. Appreciate it.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #44 on: July 27, 2012, 06:50:57 PM »
The way god is defined in your belief system, and the character of its worship and indoctrination system, seem to make your comment about "irrefutable evidence" of non-existence and "gladly" accepting such a contingency, disingenuous.

Yes, "gladly" is not the right word. It would be "sadly." Still, I do not understand why my position seems disingenuous.
[/quote]

Well, when I refer to the system of indoctrination, for example. By the time a child opens the religious text of his or her sect, it has already been subjected to a reinforcement history that serves to deteriorate that individual's ability critically to examine its content, but very easily rationalize them to conform to the inplanted schema.

The way the human brain works, essentially, is to make expectation the main determinant in experience. Being so disadvantaged perceptually, and so ingrained with expectations, all evidence against the main precepts of the belief behaviour are quickly rationalized in a way that the belief remains, unharmed.

In short, evidence of your specific deity's non-existence is beyond the perceptual ability of the inheritors of a very old, very refined set of effective indoctrination protocols. An intervention of equivalent significance, or a genetic pre-disposition to not easily being cognitively groomed for it, are the only avenue for change in the character of the belief.

I think it's disingenuous if I assume you understand a little about science involved in human psychology. I jumped the gun a bit, maybe. 

You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline nogodsforme

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6681
  • Darwins +888/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • Jehovah's Witness Protection Program
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #45 on: July 27, 2012, 06:56:57 PM »
Science has certainly destroyed any need for god as an explanation for anything.

That's a very strong statement to make when science hasn't reached a point when it can explain life from non-life, matter from non-matter, and energy from non-energy. To completely dismiss other possible explanations (including God) as the cause is somewhat sad. Personally, I would never want to be boxed in like that because you are making this statement based on faith that science is exclusively capable of providing all of the answers to highly critical questions.
So far as we have been able to discover, gods have not given us the answers to anything. Or rather, the answers that gods have given have always been wrong. No religion eradicated smallpox. Science did.
Quote

If you are going to claim your invisible, undetectable god who does nothing is somewhere in the universe, you can put everything that you can't disprove in there, too: Vishnu, Zeus, Thor, Shango, Og the Volcano Spirit, Count Chocula, Santa Claus, Mr. Spock, Barbarella, Jack's Magic Beans, Reasonable Republicans.
Quote
You are only assuming that God "does nothing." Simply because He does not behave as you would have him behave does not nullify His existence.

I am assuming nothing about god. Religious people assume a lot of things about god. Talk to any theist and you get a list of things that god does. God finds people jobs. God heals cancer. Or god saved someone from drug addiction.

But he does not do any of those things in a way that is different from random chance. And he does not do anything that can't be explained, like grow a blind person's eyes back or reverse dementia or Down's syndrome. It is as if he is not there. What am I supposed to think when a person who has god in his life lives exactly the same as a person without god? No god. What other conclusion makes sense?. I am looking at what religious people say about god and I don't see him behaving as you say he is supposed to.

Quote
They are all invisible, or don't want to be seen because that would mess up your faith, or only act through human beings, or can't be detected by skeptics, or are on an extended vacation. Or nonexistent and imaginary.
Quote
Not sure I understand your point.
My point is that there are always excuses for why god does not seem to be real.

Quote
Once you know that your parents got your Xmas presents from the store (or not if you are a JW kid) do you still believe that Santa brings them on a sleigh? Why would you?
Quote
Santa does not exist; therefore, God does not exist? An understandable analogy but very weak in demonstrating anything.
Not the point. Once we know where the presents ome from we no longer have to attribute them to Santa. The need for Santa as an explanation is gone. Before science, people only had god to explain the unknown. Now we understand many of the unknowns but some people still want to act like they need the Santa explanation. God no longer creates thunder, disease, earthquakes, and so forth. When science can create life, god will move even further back.

Quote
Of course, Santa could still somehow be magically responsible for the presents, and nobody can prove that he isn't involved. But why put him into the equation when you have a perfectly reasonable non-magical explanation? That's what I don't get. What is the point of adding in a god?
Quote
As I have said elsewhere, God and Christianity logically satisfies my need to understand:

How we got here.
Why we’re here.
Where we’re going.
How the universe and ‘life’ came to be.
How does god explain all of these things? What can you do with that information?

Quote
In a nutshell, for me, the incredible complexity of life and the vastness of the universe point to an Intelligent Designer. The TOE and the various hypotheses about abiogenesis attempt to explain this but comes up way too short to convince me. There are way too many assumptions and floating variables behind crucial areas of it.
Regardless of the incompleteness of the TOE, it actually works in application. When we use the TOE we get genetics and cures for diseases and forensic investigations of crimes and cloning. What about religion works in application?
Extraordinary claims of the bible don't even have ordinary evidence.

Kids aren't paying attention most of the time in science classes so it seems silly to get worked up over ID being taught in schools.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #46 on: July 27, 2012, 06:59:40 PM »
what is god?

I only believe in the God of the Bible. Is that the god your question pertains to?
if you only believe in the God of the bible then why ask if I was thinking of a different god?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #47 on: July 27, 2012, 07:28:27 PM »
Well, when I refer to the system of indoctrination, for example. By the time a child opens the religious text of his or her sect, it has already been subjected to a reinforcement history that serves to deteriorate that individual's ability critically to examine its content, but very easily rationalize them to conform to the inplanted schema.

The way the human brain works, essentially, is to make expectation the main determinant in experience. Being so disadvantaged perceptually, and so ingrained with expectations, all evidence against the main precepts of the belief behaviour are quickly rationalized in a way that the belief remains, unharmed.

In short, evidence of your specific deity's non-existence is beyond the perceptual ability of the inheritors of a very old, very refined set of effective indoctrination protocols. An intervention of equivalent significance, or a genetic pre-disposition to not easily being cognitively groomed for it, are the only avenue for change in the character of the belief.

I think it's disingenuous if I assume you understand a little about science involved in human psychology. I jumped the gun a bit, maybe.

You seem to be suggesting that we are all akin to robots with mental faculties that involuntarily operate according to the chemical processes in our bodies. While I do not deny that there are chemical processes at work, I dismiss the notion that we lack the ability to form thoughts and beliefs irrespective of the thoughts or beliefs those chemicals may or may not be generating on their own. I understand the indoctrination principle you are referring to but it demonstrates that a conversion from theism to non-theism is based on the same rational thought process that a conversion from non-theism to theism is.

Based on what you have pointed out here, you were either a Christian at one time or you never were but are open to the idea that God might exist.

Offline none

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 2808
  • Darwins +11/-4
  • User posts join approval queueModerated
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #48 on: July 27, 2012, 07:53:26 PM »
Well, when I refer to the system of indoctrination, for example. By the time a child opens the religious text of his or her sect, it has already been subjected to a reinforcement history that serves to deteriorate that individual's ability critically to examine its content, but very easily rationalize them to conform to the inplanted schema.

The way the human brain works, essentially, is to make expectation the main determinant in experience. Being so disadvantaged perceptually, and so ingrained with expectations, all evidence against the main precepts of the belief behaviour are quickly rationalized in a way that the belief remains, unharmed.

In short, evidence of your specific deity's non-existence is beyond the perceptual ability of the inheritors of a very old, very refined set of effective indoctrination protocols. An intervention of equivalent significance, or a genetic pre-disposition to not easily being cognitively groomed for it, are the only avenue for change in the character of the belief.

I think it's disingenuous if I assume you understand a little about science involved in human psychology. I jumped the gun a bit, maybe.

You seem to be suggesting that we are all akin to robots with mental faculties that involuntarily operate according to the chemical processes in our bodies. While I do not deny that there are chemical processes at work, I dismiss the notion that we lack the ability to form thoughts and beliefs irrespective of the thoughts or beliefs those chemicals may or may not be generating on their own. I understand the indoctrination principle you are referring to but it demonstrates that a conversion from theism to non-theism is based on the same rational thought process that a conversion from non-theism to theism is.

Based on what you have pointed out here, you were either a Christian at one time or you never were but are open to the idea that God might exist.
indoctrination usually begins in infancy, do you remember the exact circumstances of a conversion from non-awareness of god as you understand to your understanding of god now?

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #49 on: July 27, 2012, 08:34:50 PM »
what is god?

I only believe in the God of the Bible. Is that the god your question pertains to?
if you only believe in the God of the bible then why ask if I was thinking of a different god?

Because the Bible does a good job explaining who God is….and someone with over 2200 posts in this forum has surely examined what the Bible claims. Let’s not play games.

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #50 on: July 27, 2012, 08:41:17 PM »
indoctrination usually begins in infancy, do you remember the exact circumstances of a conversion from non-awareness of god as you understand to your understanding of god now?

I do not remember when I became aware of God. My understanding of God is different today than it was five, ten, or even 30 year ago. I hope I have answered your question because the way it is worded makes it a bit confusing.

Offline Red McWilliams

  • Illuminati
  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 844
  • Darwins +1/-0
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #51 on: July 27, 2012, 08:46:13 PM »
Do you believe that dark matter and dark energy exist? Would you consider the inference that it does exist a rational, reasonable, and intelligent conclusion even though it cannot be seen, touched or smelled and the evidence for it is significantly lacking?

How else do we explain the rotational velocities of galaxies?

Also, see Bullet Cluster

You have missed the whole point behind my question in the OP and have, in fact, conceded that it is okay to infer the existence of something when it is based on nothing more than a hypothetical.

But it's not based on a hypothetical.  There is direct, observational evidence of the effects of dark matter.  Something is most definitely there.  And until we know more about it, we call it dark matter.
Today I step into the shoes of a great man, a man by the name of Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho.

Offline Ambassador Pony

  • You keep what you kill.
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 6858
  • Darwins +71/-4
  • Gender: Male
  • illuminatus
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #52 on: July 27, 2012, 08:52:18 PM »
You seem to be suggesting that we are all akin to robots with mental faculties that involuntarily operate according to the chemical processes in our bodies. While I do not deny that there are chemical processes at work, I dismiss the notion that we lack the ability to form thoughts and beliefs irrespective of the thoughts or beliefs those chemicals may or may not be generating on their own. I understand the indoctrination principle you are referring to but it demonstrates that a conversion from theism to non-theism is based on the same rational thought process that a conversion from non-theism to theism is.

Based on what you have pointed out here, you were either a Christian at one time or you never were but are open to the idea that God might exist.

Your misunderstanding of the content of my message indicates that we really can't touch base very much on matters in which I am more well versed (brain and behaviour, for example).

It would devolve from here, so I'll bow out. Don't take it as a slight. 
You believe evolution and there is no evidence for that. Where is the fossil record of a half man half ape. I've only ever heard about it in reading.

Offline Boots

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1302
  • Darwins +96/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Living the Dream
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #53 on: July 27, 2012, 09:24:42 PM »
you are making this statement based on faith that science is exclusively capable of providing all of the answers to highly critical questions.

Highly critical questions like where life came from?

WHY IS THIS A CRITICAL QUESTION??  In what substantive way does knowing how life originated affect my life today?
* Religion: institutionalized superstition, period.

"Many of my ultra-conservative Republican friends...have trouble accepting the idea God is not a Republican. " ~OldChurchGuy

"We humans may never figure out the truth, but I prefer trying to find it over pretending we know it."  ~ParkingPlaces

Offline BibleStudent

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1677
  • Darwins +11/-79
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #54 on: July 27, 2012, 09:39:10 PM »
you are making this statement based on faith that science is exclusively capable of providing all of the answers to highly critical questions.

Highly critical questions like where life came from?

WHY IS THIS A CRITICAL QUESTION??  In what substantive way does knowing how life originated affect my life today?

You don't consider knowing where life came from to be critical in determining how your theist/non-theist beliefs are formed?

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12338
  • Darwins +677/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #55 on: July 27, 2012, 10:05:18 PM »
...will embrace a scientific hypothesis absent the same level of observational evidence.

this is where we are having the disconnect.  The observational evidence for dark matter far exceeds that of the hebrew deity.  The evidence for dark matter is in the math.  The universe is observed to be expanding at a rate that does not match the observed matter in it.  If you add dark matter - whatever that may turn out to be - it satisfies our current models of physics.

What is the math pointing to yhwh?  Isn't this the same godling that you guys say cannot be proven, cannot be tested?  If so, what eveidence are you talkin' 'bout, Willis?

if I said that God’s being may consist of “exotic” “invisible” particles, why is that irrational or indicative of delusion?

Because you don't have the math to support thinking that in the first place. There is no reason to consider gods, other than they are traditional answers.   Also, our "belief" in dark matter is provisional and tentative. 



Absolutely not. If you could providence irrefutable evidence that God does not exist, I would gladly accept it. 

Irrefutable evidence for non-existence?  Seriously?  Please provide irrefutable evidence against the non-existence of Zeus.  Wait, no, not Zeus.  Let me make it easier for you.  Give me irrefutable evidence I do not own a dog.  I don't.  But you cannot prove it.  I can come up with any excuse for you to show it is not irrefutable.  Given that, your bar should be lowered to what is more or less likely.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline Astreja

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3012
  • Darwins +265/-3
  • Gender: Female
  • Agnostic goddess with Clue-by-Four™
    • The Springy Goddess
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #56 on: July 27, 2012, 10:58:44 PM »
You don't consider knowing where life came from to be critical in determining how your theist/non-theist beliefs are formed?

Well, *I* certainly don't see it as a critical question.

The formation of the current universe, be it by natural or supernatural means, is a fait accompli.  The Big Bang Theory provides a satisfactory answer as to how I acquired the various atoms that make up My current physical body.

The things that I want to accomplish in My life simply do not require belief in alternate hypotheses.  They certainly do not require Me to personify and worship one particular hypothesis as if it were sentient and actually gave a rat's ass about what I'm currently doing with all those atoms.
Reality Checkroom — Not Responsible for Lost Articles

Online JeffPT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2063
  • Darwins +221/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • I'm a lead farmer mutha fucka
Re: Dark Matter and Dark Energy
« Reply #57 on: July 27, 2012, 11:20:27 PM »
Yes, I can. As I just mentioned in another post, if irrefutable evidence is presented proving that God does not exist, I would, with great sadness, terminate my beliefs.

Belief or disbelief in god (any god, including your personal fake version) is not about irrefutable evidence.  It's about reasonable doubt.  It has to be about reasonable doubt because there is no evidence to be found in favor of the existence of god; and there is no such thing as irrefutable evidence that something does not exist (especially something with the characteristics of an omnimax being).  Let me ask you though... what would you consider to be irrefutable evidence that God does not exist?  Hypothetically, of course.  Imagine what that evidence would look like, then let us all know. 

But just because we can't make a firm conclusion in either direction, that doesn't make it a stalemate BS.  There is WAY more than enough reasonable doubt at this point in time.  Every new discovery that science makes pushes the god theory further and further away as a necessary postulate.  Reasonable, educated people don't say, "God sent that earthquake" anymore.  They know that earthquakes happen from plate tectonics.  Everything is like that.  Read my signature, it sums up the entire thing.     

The 'great sadness' part is also very telling.  You love your beliefs, and that's what makes them so difficult for you to let go of.  Deep down, you know the whole thing is ridiculous, but you love that ridiculous belief.  Have you ever heard a scientist say, "I would be so sad if evolution wasn't true"?  If they did, what would you think of them?  Would you not think that part of the reason they hold onto it is precisely because they enjoy believing as they do? 

You don't consider knowing where life came from to be critical in determining how your theist/non-theist beliefs are formed?

You don't know where life came from Biblestudent.  Nobody does.  You might claim that it came from god, but you don't really know.  Your belief, however, is nothing but a 2000 year old attempt at understanding, with not a single bit of evidence to back it up.   Where life came from is not something that atheists pretend to KNOW the answer to.  You theists like to do that, but I like truth more than making shit up.  So, what am I to do?  I shrug my shoulders and wait for the evidence to roll in.  BUT, in the mean time, what I WILL do is look around at the universe and see what everything else comes from and how it operates, so I can hedge my bets in the right direction.  Since nothing else... NOTHING ELSE that we understand (and we do understand a huge amount) in the universe seems to require the presence of a supernatural power to explain it, it suddenly becomes very easy to say that beyond any serious doubt, life, in all it's complex forms, arose out of natural processes, just like everything else.  This is not FAITH that life came from natural processes, it is an educated conclusion based on the fact that everything else in the universe that we understand arose naturally and the stuff that all life forms are comprised of (including me) is part of that universe.  There is nothing special about the atoms that make up our bodies other than their arrangement.  Those same elements are found all over the universe.  And if stars, planets, black holes, solar systems, comets, asteroids, pulsars, and everything else in the universe can use those same elements and form from natural processes, life forming out of them is also the most likely scenario, even if we don't fully understand the exact mechanism yet.  If, on the other hand, everything about our universe defied a scientific explanation, then it would be far more reasonable to say that some form of god was at work. 

Sam Harris sums this up well... "I challenge anyone here to think of a question upon which we once had a scientific answer, however inadequate, but for which now the best answer is a religious one." 

Would you like to claim that the empirical data we have collected that are explained by the Dark Matter and Dark Energy theories is better answered by 'God did it'?  I don't think you're trying to do that, because you know that would be stupid.  You know that even if those are shown to be poor theories in the future, it will not be religious theories that overturn them; you know they'll be scientific ones. 

Until someone comes up with a response to what Mr. Harris said, Biblestudent, the god theory is nothing but a step in the wrong direction.  It just is and always will be because god isn't real. 
Whenever events that are purported to occur in our best interest are as numerous as the events that will just as soon kill us, then intent is hard, if not impossible to assert. NDT