An Empirical Theory Of God

[SithDoughnut]

No, it's "invisible magic energy".

If you want to call it that. I'll stick with dark energy. It's only a name after all.

I know what it is. It's a mythical "make-believe" gap filler thing you made up in your head. .

So what other than energy causes acceleration?

Like I said, we don't know anything about it other than it is the cause of the acceleration. Dark Energy essentially means "the thing that is making stuff in space go faster than it would if all we had was normal detectable energy". You understand yet? Acceleration requires some form of energy. We know nothing about this energy, but we have to call it something. Hence dark energy. However, if you like invisible magic energy we can call it that.

Then we can just call it "God energy" too right? How then is "science" any different from "religion" if empirical support of one's claim is irrelevant? Let's see you get "dark energy" to accelerate a single atom, and then talk to me about how it is the "cause" of the acceleration of a whole physical universe.

You can call it God energy if you want. You're still not understanding. I'll put it in stages.

1) The universe is expanding.

2) There is X amount of detectable (at least by current methods) energy within the universe.

3) The rate of expansion is faster than the X amount of energy we know of in the universe allows for.

4) Therefore there must be energy fuelling this acceleration that we do not know anything about.

5) This energy will be refered to as dark energy, because we have to call it something.

We don't know what it is, what it does, how it works, where it comes from. All we know is that it has to be there, otherwise the rate of expansion would not be accelerating. You understand now?

 

[SithDoughnut]

No, it’s God energy. And we know what God energy actually is:

I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens...My own hands stretched out the heavens; I marshaled their starry hosts. Isa 44:24,45:12

That's one hypothesis, I suppose. Currently, however, we have no idea what it definitely is. Most scientists require actual evidence before coming to any conclusions.

 

[sandwiches]

If you want to call it that. I'll stick with dark energy. It's only a name after all.

So what other than energy causes acceleration?

Like I said, we don't know anything about it other than it is the cause of the acceleration. Dark Energy essentially means "the thing that is making stuff in space go faster than it would if all we had was normal detectable energy". You understand yet? Acceleration requires some form of energy. We know nothing about this energy, but we have to call it something. Hence dark energy. However, if you like invisible magic energy we can call it that.

You can call it God energy if you want. You're still not understanding. I'll put it in stages.

1) The universe is expanding.

2) There is X amount of detectable (at least by current methods) energy within the universe.

3) The rate of expansion is faster than the X amount of energy we know of in the universe allows for.

4) Therefore there must be energy fuelling this acceleration that we do not know anything about.

5) This energy will be refered to as dark energy, because we have to call it something.

We don't know what it is, what it does, how it works, where it comes from. All we know is that it has to be there, otherwise the rate of expansion would not be accelerating. You understand now?

The way that this thread has gone so far, I'm expecting for him to say something along the lines of "Why not just call it 'acceleration?' *sigh*

 

[Michael]

That's one hypothesis, I suppose. Currently, however, we have no idea what it definitely is. Most scientists require actual evidence before coming to any conclusions.

So there you have it. You can no longer personally or empirically differentiate between a "religion" and a so called "science". As long as we slap a little math to the concept you seem quite happy with "God energy". Since the mainstream seems to have "pilfered" the whole idea from the OT, I suppose I'll return the favor and pilfer a little math from the mainstream. Viola, we have a perfectly wonder metaphysical theory of creation based on "God energy".

Since however this particular theory is related strictly to empirical physics, neither concept has any empirical support and it will not qualify for discussion here, unless you can get some "God energy" to "accelerate" a few atoms for us in controlled conditions on Earth.

 

[Michael]

The way that this thread has gone so far, I'm expecting for him to say something along the lines of "Why not just call it 'acceleration?' *sigh*

Read my last post to SithD. The problem is the neither of you can empirically distinguish between "God energy" and "dark energy" if we both point at the same thing in the sky and slap on a little math. See the problem?

 

[sandwiches]

Read my last post to SithD. The problem is the neither of you can empirically distinguish between "God energy" and "dark energy" if we both point at the same thing in the sky and slap on a little math. See the problem?

You now want to conflate an arbitrary name for something unknown with something that actual belongs to that school of thought. You seem to think that by simply calling dark energy "God energy," you've immediately moved the hypothesis from a scientific one to a theological one. In that case, if we call it "Flower power" are you going to claim we can't distinguish an empirical hypothesis from a botanical one?

The fact remains that there's something accelerating the expansion of the universe. Call it dark energy, God energy, Gatorade energy, or coffee. It's irrelevant. The fact remains that the effects of this Gatorade energy are objectively observable and should be investigated. I honestly, fail to see the point you're trying to make.

 

[sandwiches]

Read my last post to SithD. The problem is the neither of you can empirically distinguish between "God energy" and "dark energy" if we both point at the same thing in the sky and slap on a little math. See the problem?

Tell you what: Let's do this one step at a time and we'll see where you get lost.

Is there scientific evidence that the universe is expanding, yes or no?

 

[SithDoughnut]

So there you have it. You can no longer personally or empirically differentiate between a "religion" and a so called "science".

Why would I? Religion is a scientific hypothesis. Fairies are also a scientific hypothesis. Most opinions are scientific hypotheses. Why would I want to differentiate? Differentiating between religion and science merely means that religion can use excuses such as 'God is beyond science' or 'Science has nothing to do with religion'. If you don't differentiate then religion has to be treated like every other unproven opinion in science.

As long as we slap a little math to the concept you seem quite happy with "God energy". Since the mainstream seems to have "pilfered" the whole idea from the OT, I suppose I'll return the favor and pilfer a little math from the mainstream. Viola, we have a perfectly wonder metaphysical theory of creation based on "God energy".

What math are you talking about? It's pretty obvious that you still don't understand what dark energy is. Essentially, dark energy means 'the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe'. To say 'dark energy' is the same as saying 'the cause'. If you want to call it God energy, that's fine, but due to the energy having no known properties, you can't use it to prove God. The name would merely be a coincidence.

Since however this particular theory is related strictly to empirical physics, neither concept has any empirical support and it will not qualify for discussion here, unless you can get some "God energy" to "accelerate" a few atoms for us in controlled conditions on Earth.

I'm really failing to see how you can't understand this, but I sandwiches is having a go to try and work it out, so I'll leave him to it for a bit. Do me one favour: go and read the list in my earlier post which explains the line of thinking (post #361, I think), and point out at which stage do we need this empirical support that we apparently don't have.

EDIT: I've got another way of thinking that might help you understand: 'Dark Energy' is a temporary name that scientists will use until they work out what this energy actually is. There is no empirical evidence necessary other than proving the acceleration of the expansion (which we've done) - the name itself doesn't require evidence because the name doesn't mean anything.

 

[Michael]

You now want to conflate an arbitrary name for something unknown with something that actual belongs to that school of thought. You seem to think that by simply calling dark energy "God energy," you've immediately moved the hypothesis from a scientific one to a theological one. In that case, if we call it "Flower power" are you going to claim we can't distinguish an empirical hypothesis from a botanical one?

The fact remains that there's something accelerating the expansion of the universe. Call it dark energy, God energy, Gatorade energy, or coffee. It's irrelevant. The fact remains that the effects of this Gatorade energy are objectively observable and should be investigated. I honestly, fail to see the point you're trying to make.

The point I am trying to make is that by your logic you're obligating yourself to believe that 70+ percent of the universe is composed of "God energy", 25-26 percent of the physical universe is composed of invisible "God matter" and only about 4% of the physical universe has ever been "seen by man".

If only 4% has been seen by man, and the rest is all "God" related, why are you an atheist?

 

[sandwiches]

The point I am trying to make is that by your logic you're obligating yourself to believe that 70+ percent of the universe is composed of "God energy", 25-26 percent of the physical universe is composed of invisible "God matter" and only about 4% of the physical universe has ever been "seen by man".

If only 4% has been seen by man, and the rest is all "God" related, why are you an atheist?

Because "god energy" is just name. If we call it "corrupt data" does that mean that we're all inside a computer program? Your proposition is quite simply ridiculous. You keep insisting that if we called this energy that's causing this acceleration "god energy," all of the sudden that hypothesis is a theological one and it can be used to support the existence of god. IT IS JUST A NAME. Names do not shape reality. If I called myself God, I would still me and I would NOT be God.

Is this really that hard for you to understand?

 

[Michael]

Why would I?

Because in terms of empirical physics you can?

Why are you an "atheist" again?

Religion is a scientific hypothesis. Fairies are also a scientific hypothesis. Most opinions are scientific hypotheses. Why would I want to differentiate?

Because some of them actually do show up in a lab in real controlled experiments and others do not?

Differentiating between religion and science merely means that religion can use excuses such as 'God is beyond science' or 'Science has nothing to do with religion'. If you don't differentiate then religion has to be treated like every other unproven opinion in science.

Oddly enough I understand your point, I agree with it, and hence this thread.

What math are you talking about?

How about that math that astronomers use to claim that 70+ percent of the universe is made of "God energy"?

It's pretty obvious that you still don't understand what dark energy is.

Oh get off your high horse, you don't either. Where do I get some "dark energy" in a measured quantity?

Essentially, dark energy means 'the cause of the acceleration of the expansion of the universe'.

Dark energy is a figment of someone's overactive imagination. It doesn't "accelerate" a single atom on Earth so why should I believe it exists or accelerates anything?

To say 'dark energy' is the same as saying 'the cause'.

We don't know the cause. You're simply "assuming" it has something to do with "dark energy".

If you want to call it God energy, that's fine, but due to the energy having no known properties, you can't use it to prove God. The name would merely be a coincidence.

It's not coincidence. Doveman showed you it was "predicted" several thousand years ago.

EDIT: I've got another way of thinking that might help you understand: 'Dark Energy' is a temporary name that scientists will use until they work out what this energy actually is.

In other words it's an ad hoc creation that is essentially "gap filler" till they figure out something better? I can already tell you that the only known force of nature that is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity is the EM field. If there is a likely "cause" of acceleration is has nothing to do with "dark energy" and everything to do with living inside of an electric universe.

There is no empirical evidence necessary other than proving the acceleration of the expansion (which we've done)

Sorry, but that's just wrong. You're now trying to claim that the "cause" is related to acceleration and you never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between "dark energy" and "acceleration". It's an unproven assertion. Why are you an atheist if 96% of the universe is known to be composed of "God energy" and "God matter"? You've only ever seen 4% of the universe according to standard theory.

 

[sandwiches]

Because in terms of empirical physics you can?

Why are you an "atheist" again?

Because some of them actually do show up in a lab in real controlled experiments and others do not?

Oddly enough I understand your point, I agree with it, and hence this thread.

How about that math that astronomers use to claim that 70+ percent of the universe is made of "God energy"?

Oh get off your high horse, you don't either. Where do I get some "dark energy" in a measured quantity?

Dark energy is a figment of someone's overactive imagination. It doesn't "accelerate" a single atom on Earth so why should I believe it exists or accelerates anything?

We don't know the cause. You're simply "assuming" it has something to do with "dark energy".

It's not coincidence. Doveman showed you it was "predicted" several thousand years ago.

In other words it's an ad hoc creation that is essentially "gap filler" till they figure out something better? I can already tell you that the only known force of nature that is 39 orders of magnitude more powerful than gravity is the EM field. If there is a likely "cause" of acceleration is has nothing to do with "dark energy" and everything to do with living inside of an electric universe.

Sorry, but that's just wrong. You're now trying to claim that the "cause" is related to acceleration and you never demonstrated a cause/effect relationship between "dark energy" and "acceleration". It's an unproven assertion. Why are you an atheist if 96% of the universe is known to be composed of "God energy" and "God matter"? You've only ever seen 4% of the universe according to standard theory.

I go to my kitchen and I find my milk spilled in the fridge. I say "something must have spilled this milk." I don't know what caused it, but obviously something did. I'll call whatever did this "mystery cause" while I try to figure what caused the milk to spill.

This is what your ridiculous arguments are like:
"You just made up this 'mystery cause!' Show me where I can pick up some of this 'mystery cause' and how you measured it empirically!"

"'Mystery cause' is just an ad hoc creation as a gap-filler; Completely made up in someone's head"

"Why not just call it 'spilling?' It's already got a name. Duh!"

"If we call whatever caused the spill 'God cause,' why are you still an atheist?"

"There has never been any empirical evidence that the 'mystery cause' has ABSOLUTELY anything to do with the spilling of the milk."

"You're just assuming that the 'mystery cause' has something to do with the spilling of the milk."

 

[Michael]

I go to my kitchen and I find my milk spilled in the fridge. I say "something must have spilled this milk." I don't know what caused it, but obviously something did. I'll call whatever did this "mystery cause" while I try to figure what caused the milk to spill.

So you really think "dark evil energies" went in there and messed with your milk eh?

This is what your ridiculous arguments are like:
"You just made up this 'mystery cause!' Show me where I can pick up some of this 'mystery cause' and how you measured it empirically!"

"'Mystery cause' is just an ad hoc creation as a gap-filler; Completely made up in someone's head"

"Why not just call it 'spilling?' It's already got a name. Duh!"

"If we call whatever caused the spill 'God cause,' why are you still an atheist?"

"There has never been any empirical evidence that the 'mystery cause' has ABSOLUTELY anything to do with the spilling of the milk."

"You're just assuming that the 'mystery cause' has something to do with the spilling of the milk."

Your argument fails because you didn't pick a "mystery cause", you (your side) made a "claim", specifically the claim that "dark energy" spilled the milk. Furthermore you've decided that 70+ of the universe is now composed of "dark evil energies" that run around spilling everyone's milk.

Whatever it is that motivates you to "lack belief" in an intelligent creator (presumably a lack of empirical support), should also cause you to outright reject the notion of "dark evil energies" too, but for some reason you don't. Is there a double standard going on there or what?

 

[sandwiches]

So you really think "dark evil energies" went in there and messed with your milk eh?

Reply within the context of what you're quoting. I never mentioned "dark evil energies" in my example. Please don't make up things I never said. I'm surprised you haven't accused those scientists who came up with the idea of 'dark energy' of being satanists or something. After all, somehow you think that 'dark energy' is evil or something.

I have to agree with Sith, regardless of how high my horse might be, you truly do NOT know what dark energy is supposed to be and therefore, quite bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about.

Your argument fails because you didn't pick a "mystery cause", you (your side) made a "claim", specifically the claim that "dark energy" spilled the milk. Furthermore you've decided that 70+ of the universe is now composed of "dark evil energies" that run around spilling everyone's milk.

No such claim. Stay in context.

I did make a claim. I am making the claim that the 'mystery cause' spilled my milk. Is that metaphysics and equivalent to 'goddidit' in your mind?

Whatever it is that motivates you to "lack belief" in an intelligent creator (presumably a lack of empirical support), should also cause you to outright reject the notion of "dark evil energies" too, but for some reason you don't. Is there a double standard going on there or what?

You're now reaching. No one is claiming that "dark evil energies" have done anything at all. If we are claiming that, please quote or us where anyone has said that. Failure to do so will only show that you indeed are making things up, plain and simple.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

sith:"To say 'dark energy' is the same as saying 'the cause'."
​

We don't know the cause. You're simply "assuming" it has something to do with "dark energy".

Michael, I want to ask you to look at this bit for a while. I read this and my jaw just hit the floor. Keep in mind. Sith is correct. You however have decided dark energy means something different and are for whatever reason hanging on to YOUR definition of it rather then the actual definition.

I am not sure how to explain the difference in a way you would understand. Ill try like this..

"Michaels dictionary" vs "Scientific dictionary"
Notice now, the two are not the same dictionary. When refering to scientific topics. We have to use the "scientific dictionary"s definition of a word. That means "Michaels dictionary" needs to be left at home because for some reason it does not use the same definitions.

Again i kind of want to stress this.. Read the quote it shows everything so well.
I am trying to be respectfull i really am. I have to restrain myself and erase entire sentences that i think might come across wrong but if there still is something insulting in here just gloss over it and focus on the fact im trying to help.

As closing words.
We dont know what the cause is.
We dont know what dark energy is.
These two sentences are both true and are both saying the same thing.

 

[ArnautDaniel]

How long are you all planning to argue over what name you want to give to the unknown cause of the unexplained acceleration?

I'm going to call it "Bob".

The stars are accelerating because of "Bob".

But...mark my words...when their positions are right...well...

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

How long are you all planning to argue over what name you want to give to the unknown cause of the unexplained acceleration?

I'm going to call it "Bob".

The stars are accelerating because of "Bob".

But...mark my words...when their positions are right...well...

I always had a hunch "Bobdidit."

 

[Michael]

Reply within the context of what you're quoting. I never mentioned "dark evil energies" in my example. Please don't make up things I never said.

But that's my point. You made something up that the evidence doesn't warrant. Just because your milk was spilled, that is not evidence that "dark energy" did it. Not knowing the real cause of the spilled milk does not add anything to argument that "dark energy did it". Whatever caused the milk to be spilled, it wasn't related to "dark energy" because there is no empirical connection between spilled milk and dark energy. The only difference is we're talking acceleration, not spilled milk, but the complaint is exactly the same.

I have to agree with Sith, regardless of how high my horse might be, you truly do NOT know what dark energy is supposed to be and therefore, quite bluntly, you don't know what you're talking about.

Frankly I've been the worlds most vocal critic of mainstream theory now for several years on the internet. I've had this discussion with anyone and everyone associated with astronomy on the internet. Believe me when I tell you there are no "experts" on the topic. In fact the "mainstream" can't even all seem to agree on what it is, what it does, what it "accelerates", etc.

I did make a claim. I am making the claim that the 'mystery cause' spilled my milk. Is that metaphysics and equivalent to 'goddidit' in your mind?

The mystery isn't a problem for me as long as you aren't claiming "dark energy did it".

You're now reaching. No one is claiming that "dark evil energies" have done anything at all. If we are claiming that, please quote or us where anyone has said that. Failure to do so will only show that you indeed are making things up, plain and simple.

The basic problem is that the mainstream failed to "qualify" their claim in any empirical test of concept. Nobody ever demonstrated "dark energy" exists, or has the ability to accelerate a single atom, let alone a whole universe.

 

[Michael]

Michael, I want to ask you to look at this bit for a while. I read this and my jaw just hit the floor. Keep in mind. Sith is correct. You however have decided dark energy means something different and are for whatever reason hanging on to YOUR definition of it rather then the actual definition.

What "definition" shall we use in your opinion, and what does "dark energy" have to do with "acceleration"?

As closing words.
We dont know what the cause is.

Then how does the mainstream seem to "know" that 70+ percent of the universe is made of "dark energy" again?

We dont know what dark energy is.

Ok. Do we even know if it exists or has any effect on say a single atom in a controlled test of concept?

These two sentences are both true and are both saying the same thing.

I'm afraid that simply doesn't explain why I keep reading paper after paper about "dark energy did this", "dark matter did that", all related to "point at the sky" exercises that completely lack any control mechanism whatsoever.

 

[Belk]

One wonders why you guys keep throwing yourself against this brick wall?