An Empirical Theory Of God

[Michael]

Now, you if you agree the universe is expanding and this expansion is accelerating, then you agree that something must be causing it. You don't think that this 'something' should have a name or have, at least, a moniker until we find what this 'something' is?

Acceleration already has a proper scientific name. Whatever the empirical physical "cause" of that "acceleration" is has nothing whatsoever do to with "dark evil energies".

 

[sandwiches]

Acceleration already has a proper scientific name. Whatever the empirical physical "cause" of that "acceleration" is has nothing whatsoever do to with "dark evil energies".

I see you slyly avoided my question. I didn't say that we should rename acceleration. I said shouldn't we name THE CAUSE of said acceleration for ease of use?

 

[Michael]

I see you slyly avoided my question. I didn't say that we should rename acceleration. I said shouldn't we name THE CAUSE of said acceleration for ease of use?

Shall we call it "God energy" then?

 

[Michael]

We don't "know" the cause, although the most logical explanation of acceleration of plasma is the EM field. What exactly do we call it besides "acceleration"?

 

[sandwiches]

Shall we call it "God energy" then?

Not to sound mean, but is this really what your entire argument boils down to? You don't like the name??

*sigh*

 

[Michael]

Not to sound mean, but is this really what your entire argument boils down to? You don't like the name??

*sigh*

No, I guess I was too glib. My bad. Let me try to explain myself more clearly for you. I'm sure you'll understand it once I explain it properly.

I have a philosophical problem with abandoning empirical physics altogether. The intent of my prior comments was to point out to you that you wouldn't be happy with the name I chose because:

A) Nobody established the empirical existence of "God energy".
B) Nobody demonstrated it has an effect on anything.
C) Nobody empirically demonstrated it has the effect we claim it has on things
D) It is therefore illogical to attempt to slap math to "God energy" and claim "God energy did it".

Likewise nobody ever empirically demonstrated that "dark energy" is anything other than imaginary mythical gap filler to prop up an otherwise falsified theory.

Nobody ever empirically demonstrated that "dark energy" has any tangible or empirical effect on anything.

It is therefore completely irrational IMO to slap math to "dark energy" and claim "dark energy did it". I can blatantly pilfer the same math, call it "God energy" and have a wonderful *METAPHYSICAL* theistic theory about creation, but I'm only interested in empirical physics and empirical theories. I have no time nor need for any "religion" that requires "faith" in the "unseen" and more importantly the "unseeable" in empirical experiments. I'm interested in things that are "empirically real" and show up in the real world and real controlled experimentation.

 

[sandwiches]

No, I guess I was too glib. My bad. Let me try to explain myself more clearly for you. I'm sure you'll understand it once I explain it properly.

I have a philosophical problem with abandoning empirical physics altogether. The intent of my prior comments was to point out to you that you wouldn't be happy with the name I chose because:

A) Nobody established the empirical existence of "God energy".
B) Nobody demonstrated it has an effect on anything.
C) Nobody empirically demonstrated it has the effect we claim it has on things
D) It is therefore illogical to attempt to slap math to "God energy" and claim "God energy did it".

Likewise nobody ever empirically demonstrated that "dark energy" is anything other than imaginary mythical gap filler to prop up an otherwise falsified theory.

Nobody ever empirically demonstrated that "dark energy" has any tangible or empirical effect on anything.

It is therefore completely irrational IMO to slap math to "dark energy" and claim "dark energy did it". I can blatantly pilfer the same math, call it "God energy" and have a wonderful *METAPHYSICAL* theistic theory about creation, but I'm only interested in empirical physics and empirical theories. I have no time nor need for any "religion" that requires "faith" in the "unseen" and more importantly the "unseeable" in empirical experiments. I'm interested in things that are "empirically real" and show up in the real world and real controlled experimentation.

First off, I wouldn't have a problem with people calling it "God energy." After all, the famous Higgs Boson is called by many the "God particle." I have no problem with that. It's also a hypothetical construct. Is that also metaphysics according to you?

Now, why is it irrational to put a label one that which is causing the universe to accelerate its expansion?

By slapping a label of "God energy" to "Dark energy" you it doesn't automagically become a "wonderful *METAPHYSICAL* theistic theory" of anything. For your idea adds an extra step and therefore, an extra layer of evidence needed, as not only would your energy be hypothetical but your source (God) be untestable.

 

[Michael]

First off, I wouldn't have a problem with people calling it "God energy." After all, the famous Higgs Boson is called by many the "God particle." I have no problem with that. It's also a hypothetical construct. Is that also metaphysics according to you?

Well, unlike the Higgs, which has a known source (atoms) where does one go to get a cup of inflation or dark energy?

Now, why is it irrational to put a label one that which is causing the universe to accelerate its expansion?

What is the empirical physical "cause" of that "acceleration"? It sure can't be "magic energy" because nothing like that exists in nature. There's no sense in calling it "invisible energy" either.

For your idea adds an extra step and therefore, an extra layer of evidence needed, as not only would your energy be hypothetical but your source (God) be untestable.

Actually even adding the term "dark" adds another ad hoc "property" to your claim that defies empirical support. Oh, and I won't buy: "Oh, my invisible friend is obviously invisible so his "darkness" is evidence he's invisible."

 

[sandwiches]

What is the empirical physical "cause" of that "acceleration"? It sure can't be "magic energy" because nothing like that exists in nature. There's no sense in calling it "invisible energy" either.

Actually even adding the term "dark" adds another ad hoc "property" to your claim that defies empirical support. Oh, and I won't buy: "Oh, my invisible friend is obviously invisible so his "darkness" is evidence he's invisible."

Again, it seems like your problem is with the name. Is this really it? You accept that the universe may be expanding and said expansion accelerating but you refuse to name it? Is that it?

 

[Michael]

Again, it seems like your problem is with the name.

No, it's a problem with a lack of empirical support.

Is this really it? You accept that the universe may be expanding and said expansion accelerating but you refuse to name it? Is that it?

"Acceleration" already has a proper scientific name. The process of the acceleration of the universe cannot be due to magic energy however because:

A) Magic energy doesn't empirically exist
B) Magic energy has no effect on anything in an empirical test.
C) Magic energy does not accelerate a single atom in a lab in an empirical experiment.
D) Magic energy is a figment of human imagination, not a real force of nature.

All of these same criticisms also apply to "dark energy". Whatever the actual physical 'cause' of acceleration, it has nothing to do with 'dark energy'.

 

[sandwiches]

No, it's a problem with a lack of empirical support.

"Acceleration" already has a proper scientific name. The process of the acceleration of the universe cannot be due to magic energy however because:

A) Magic energy doesn't empirically exist
B) Magic energy has no effect on anything in an empirical test.
C) Magic energy does not accelerate a single atom in a lab in an empirical experiment.
D) Magic energy is a figment of human imagination, not a real force of nature.

All of these same criticisms also apply to "dark energy". Whatever the actual physical 'cause' of acceleration, it has nothing to do with 'dark energy'.

So, you don't think there's a cause for this acceleration?

 

[Michael]

So, you don't think there's a cause for this acceleration?

Sure, I just don't think it's magic energy.

 

[sandwiches]

Sure, I just don't think it's magic energy.

Neither do I or anyone in this thread. So, it's irrelevant and just a strawman.

So, this cause should have a name, while we try to find out what it is, right?

 

[Michael]

Neither do I or anyone in this thread. So, it's irrelevant and just a strawman.

So, this cause should have a name, while we try to find out what it is, right?

So what exactly is wrong with "acceleration" in your opinion?

There's no strawman here. There is simply no empirical connection between "invisible magic energy" and acceleration, or "dark energy" and acceleration. All we know is we can't explain that "acceleration" of a mostly plasma universe. The only logical "force of nature" that might explain an acceleration of plasma is an EM field. On the other hand, I have no empirical connection between the acceleration of plasma and magic dark evil energy.

 

[sandwiches]

So what exactly is wrong with "acceleration" in your opinion?

I don't know how many times I can say this and you still not get it. The acceleration is NOT the so-called "dark energy." The CAUSE of the acceleration is the dark energy. THE CAUSE OF THE ACCELERATION. THE CAUSE OF THE ACCELERATION, NOT THE ACCELERATION ITSELF.

Shouldn't the CAUSE of said acceleration be investigated and have a name in the interim?

 

[Michael]

The CAUSE of the acceleration is the dark energy.

This would be the claim for which you have zero empirical support. How do you know what "causes" the acceleration, or that the acceleration is related to "dark energy"? You just made that up.

 

[SithDoughnut]

This would be the claim for which you have zero empirical support. How do you know what "causes" the acceleration, or that the acceleration is related to "dark energy"? You just made that up.

No, it's dark energy. We just don't know what dark energy actually is. Dark energy is the name for the cause of the acceleration, but it doesn't actually mean much else because we don't know. We know it exists because something has to be causing the acceleration. Whatever the something is, it's currently called dark energy.

 

[Michael]

No, it's dark energy.

No, it's "invisible magic energy".

We just don't know what dark energy actually is.

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

Dark energy is the name for the cause of the acceleration, but it doesn't actually mean much else because we don't know. We know it exists because something has to be causing the acceleration. Whatever the something is, it's currently called dark energy.

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.

 

[Doveaman]

No, it's dark energy. We just don't know what dark energy actually is.

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

 

[sandwiches]

This would be the claim for which you have zero empirical support. How do you know what "causes" the acceleration, or that the acceleration is related to "dark energy"? You just made that up.

So, what you're saying now is that you think that there is no cause for this acceleration? Is that it?