Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[AV1611VET]

Well, not knowing and still making up claims is not a good way to debate.

Neither is asking questions you know aren't covered by the Documentation.

I don't think the goal is to debate it.

 

[Doveaman]

I fear you still don´t understand what I am talking about, hung up as you are on the existence or non-existence of dark matter as you are.

Some people are hung up on God similarly.

It does not matter if dark matter exists or not. It does not have to be a correct explanation. It is possible / likely that other explanations exist... even your beloved plasma cosmology presents an explanation.

But these options have explanatory value, because there exists a mechanism, a causal relationship between the object and the effect.

I am following you so far, but if you have not verified the “object”, how can you conclude the “effect” is cased by it?

If I have not verified God, how can I conclude the universe effects is cased by Him?

Mass -> force.

I guess this is where we differ.

There is no disputing “Mass -> force”. The problem is you haven’t established by empirical verification that Dark Matter is Mass -> force.

You are working backwards toward conjecture. You assume (without verification) that gravity is the force being observed, then you assume Mass is present because you assume gravity is present, then you conjecture dark matter is present because of the assumed presence of Mass. You are just moving from one assumption to another with no empirical verification for any.

If you want to call an assumption an explanation, fine, than I can assume “God did it” as an explanation.

Yet...
God -> ?

There is no mechanism, no causal relationship. There isn´t even an idea of such a thing.

Well, I don’t see dark matter as any different. You assume the effects you are observing to be gravity, and you assume the cause to be dark matter, but none has been verified.

It is deliberately left vague... "with God, all things are possible". If everything is possible, you cannot make any distinctions. No way to keep right from wrong.

All things being possible with God mean that with God all things are possible. It doesn’t mean He will make all things possible. If He did, you cannot make any distinctions. No way to keep right from wrong.

"God did it." has the same explanatory value as "blue caused it".... none at all.

So does “Dark Matter did it”.

Since no one has ever detected or seen dark matter chances are it is “blue” in color.

Real matter we know, but non-baryonic (atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable) dark matter, what is it? Where did it come from? Does anyone have some? Has it been observed, detected, or measured? Is there direct evidence for it, or is it only inferred?

I can infer “God did it” since God is also atomless, transparent, and scientifically undetectable.

This is where you are wrong, and this is the mistake at the very basis of our misunderstandings here. Hypothetical dark matter does not need to be observed to exert gravity. It will, by the simply fact of being what it is.

Nothing hypothetical can exert anything, except in our heads – imaginary images.

You seem to assume that, because "dark matter" has not been observed, and it´s effects not measured, it could behave completely different.

I am of the view that, because "dark matter" is atomless, transparent, and scientifically undetectable, it does not exist. This is why it is considered hypothetical.

Does God exist?

Does He?

Well?

Does He?

If not, why not?

But that is wrong. If I have a hypothetical cube/die in my hand, and hypothetically throw it, I can with certainty say that it will land on one of its six sides... and not on the eighth. Simply because even hypothetical cubes - even if they don´t exist - have only six sides.

You already know what a cube/die is and does base on tests. Not the same with dark matter.

A quite good example for such an "hypothetical dark matter" would be the planet Neptune. It wasn´t (primarily) found by direct observation, but by the (gravitational) effect it had on the other planets (specifically Uranus).

To compare a puny planet composed of real matter with matter that is non-baryonic and is supposed to hold galaxies together all over the universe is not a good example. If so much dark matter is there, then how can you miss it? Is it because it is atomless, transparent, and scientifically undetectable? Is it because it is a god created in the image of man to sustain the universe by its power..

So here you have it: hypothetical matter that has been observed to exert gravity.

Your definition of ‘hypothetical’ is different from mine, I guess. The only gravity hypothetical matter can exert is hypothetical gravity, and not real gravity. When dark matter is found like Neptune was then you will have a point.

In the mean time, if non-baryonic (atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable) hypothetical “dark matter did it” can be an explanation, then the non-baryonic (atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable) divine “God did it” can also be an explanation.

We accept both as a valid explanation, or we reject both.

 

[Cabal]

And that's because a literal interpretation forces even those hostile to the Bible to admit as to what It's saying.

You can't do that with allegorists, who use their own interpretations as the final authority for what is said.

Excuse me, you use your own interpretations to back up what you're saying also. "Allegorists" (whatever that is) at least have the decency to admit their interpretations are the basis, rather than deluding themselves that they've got the "right" interpretation.

Your hypocritical double standards are showing yet again.

 

[Freodin]

We accept both as a valid explanation, or we reject both.

I´m not quite sure how to interprete that little "cross" icon you sport beside your name, but by experience I have come to connect it with people who claim to believe in the Christian God.

But accoring to your statement I just quoted, you reject God as an explanatory hypothesis.

How is that possible?

 

[Doveaman]

The men of Noah's time, in their philosophy and worldly wisdom, thought God could not destroy the world with a flood, for the waters of the ocean could not be sufficient for this. But God made the philosophy and science of men foolishness when the time had fully come to execute his word. The inspired pen describes the earth as standing out of the water and in the water. God had his weapons concealed in the bowels of the earth to compass her destruction. And when the great men and the wise men had reasoned before the world of the impossibility of its destruction by water, and the fears of the people were quieted, and all regarded Noah's prophecy as the veriest delusion, and looked upon Noah as a crazy fanatic, God's time had come. He hid Noah and his family in the ark, and the rain began to descend, slowly at first; the jeers and scoffings did not cease for a time, but soon the waters from heaven united with the waters of the great deep; the waters under the earth burst through the earth's surface, and the windows of heaven were opened, and man with all his philosophy and so called science, finds that he had not been able in his worldly wisdom to comprehend God. He found too late that his wisdom was foolishness; that the Lawgiver is greater than the laws of nature. The hand of omnipotence is at no loss for ways and means to accomplish his purposes.

Quite simply, God did it. Case closed.

And He will do it again, but this time by fire:

"But the day of the Lord will come like a thief. The heavens will disappear with a roar; the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything in it will be laid bare" 2 Peter 3:10.

 

[MoonLancer]

sounds like a great guy cant wait to meet him

 

[Doveaman]

I have to admit that this is one thing - really the only thing - that I sometimes regret at being an atheist.

When the debate is stuck, and - by my fault or by the stubborness of my opponent - I cannot make headway, I cannot simply rely on my divine master to simply kill those stupid and evil beings that dare disagree with me.

Not that I (often) would want to. I´d rather convince my opponents than slay them. But I can feel the appeal of such a position.

Killing is just soooo much more easy than convincing.

God doesn't kill. He simply takes back what He gave because we are not using it the way He intended.

"The earth is the LORD's, and everything in it, the world, and all who live in it...'The silver is Mine, and the gold is Mine...for every animal of the forest is Mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills...and the creatures of the field are Mine...for the world is Mine, and all that is in it'" - Ps 24:1, Hag 2:8, Ps 50:10-12.

 

[Doveaman]

I´m not quite sure how to interprete that little "cross" icon you sport beside your name, but by experience I have come to connect it with people who claim to believe in the Christian God.

But accoring to your statement I just quoted, you reject God as an explanatory hypothesis.

How is that possible?

It's possible because I do not view God as a mere "hypothesis". I view Him as real, because HE IS.

I am just referring to Him here hypothetically for the sake of the debate.

 

[Freodin]

[/COLOR]I am following you so far, but if you have not verified the “object”, how can you conclude the “effect” is cased by it?

If I have not verified God, how can I conclude the universe effects is cased by Him?

The conclusion - and the differences in conclusion - are rather simple.

If there is something out there that has mass - and that could even be non-baryonic matter: neutrinos, for example - then it it will cause a certain effect: gravity.

This is a conclusion based on our knowledge of physics: mass causes gravity.

On the other hand, we have absolutely know idea what "effect" God would have, could have, might have.

So the corresponding conclusion would be:

If there is God out there, then it would cause a certain effect: gravity. Or perhaps not. Or perhaps the complete opposite. Or something in between. Or both at the same time.

I guess this is where we differ.

There is no disputing “Mass -> force”. The problem is you haven’t established by empirical verification that Dark Matter is Mass -> force.

There is no problem. As I said, we are not yet looking for the correct explanation... just an explanation. All we have to postulate that there is something having mass out there which we cannot "see" (yet)... and that would bring the observed effect. It might be something completely different... the important part is "would bring the observed effect".

Mass is know to bring that effect. Electromagnetic field are also known to bring that effect. Little girls in tu-tus shoving around stuff are also known to bring that effect.

God is NOT known to bring that effect.

You are working backwards toward conjecture. You assume (without verification) that gravity is the force being observed, then you assume Mass is present because you assume gravity is present, then you conjecture dark matter is present because of the assumed presence of Mass. You are just moving from one assumption to another with no empirical verification for any.

No. You still don´t understand me. I deliberately taking steps NOT to assume that gravity is the force being observed, so mass must be present. I deliberately mentioned your own pet theory as another potential and valid explanation.

All I do is to exclude certain assumtions as "explanation", because they are NOT known (or empirically verified) to have the observed effect.

If you want to call an assumption an explanation, fine, than I can assume “God did it” as an explanation.

The assumption is an explanation only because it fits, and can be used to explain the phenomenon. "God did it" can not, just as "hammer did it) is (without further, even unmentioned knowledge) not an explanation for the nail in the wall.

Well, I don’t see dark matter as any different. You assume the effects you are observing to be gravity, and you assume the cause to be dark matter, but none has been verified.

As I said... repeatedly.. I do not assume that. So why do you still claim that I do?

Real matter we know, but non-baryonic (atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable) dark matter, what is it? Where did it come from? Does anyone have some? Has it been observed, detected, or measured? Is there direct evidence for it, or is it only inferred?

Non-baryonic matter is "atomless", by the simply fact that atoms themselves are made up from baryons. But baryons are not the only existing particles. I already mentioned Neutrinos, which are quite detectable non-baryonic particles.

I can infer “God did it” since God is also atomless, transparent, and scientifically undetectable.

I think I countered the "scientifically undetectable" in the last paragraph. So we are left with "atomless" and "transparent". Electromagnetic fields are atomless and transparent. Are they also only "hypothetical" and "non-existent"?

Nothing hypothetical can exert anything, except in our heads – imaginary images.
I am of the view that, because "dark matter" is atomless, transparent, and scientifically undetectable, it does not exist. This is why it is considered hypothetical.

That is a false use of the term "hypothetical". Something hypothetical is proposed to exist. It may... or it may not. It is not up to you to dogmatically state that it does not, because it is only proposed.

Does God exist?

Does He?

Well?

Does He?

If not, why not?

God is atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable - thus hypothetical, and thus, based on your reasoning, does not exist. Perhaps you should refine your reasoning.

You already know what a cube/die is and does base on tests. Not the same with dark matter.

Not necessarily. I don´t have to "test" a cube to know that it has six sides. Six sides is what a cube IS. If it doesn´t have six sides, it isn´t a cube. Even if I had never seen a "real" (atomic, opaque, scientifically detectable) cube, I would know that it has six sides. Even hypothetical cubes have six sides.

Now there are "hypothetical" objects in mathematics that cannot exist in our atomic, opaque, scientifically detectable world. They are mathematical constructs, existing only in mathematical constructed realms. And still we can say how they will behave in their world.

To compare a puny planet composed of real matter with matter that is non-baryonic and is supposed to hold galaxies together all over the universe is not a good example.

This "puny" planet... a lot larger than our earth, was purely hypothetical for more than twenty years! It was only inferred, never observed. How do you think that was possible?

If so much dark matter is there, then how can you miss it? Is it because it is atomless, transparent, and scientifically undetectable? Is it because it is a god created in the image of man to sustain the universe by its power..

How do you think they missed a whole planet? A large mass of ice and gasses and whatnot, heavy enough to influence an even bigger ball of ice and gas on its course around the sun! HOW THE HECK DID THEY MISS IT?

It is not because they created it in the image of man to influence orbits... just because they did not know where / how to look for it. Dark matter has never been said to be "scientifically undetectable"... these are only your views. It might be scientifically undetected, but not undetectable.

Your definition of ‘hypothetical’ is different from mine, I guess. The only gravity hypothetical matter can exert is hypothetical gravity, and not real gravity. When dark matter is found like Neptune was then you will have a point.

So as long as Neptune wasn´t found, and was only proposed - a hypothesis! - it did not exert any gravity, and the effects measured on the orbit of Saturn were... what? Non-existent? Acts of God?
People were just lucky to find a planet at the position they had calculated - not observed! - a planet should be based on its effects?

In the mean time, if non-baryonic (atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable) hypothetical “dark matter did it” can be an explanation, then the non-baryonic (atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable) divine “God did it” can also be an explanation.

We accept both as a valid explanation, or we reject both.

I have already pointed out that your usage of "scientifically undetectable" is only a strawman. Based on that alone, the two options are not comparable.

But if you continue to insist they are... I would really like to have my last post answered: how do you get that squared with your professed belief?


Edit: sorry for the wierd colouring. Your usage of colours in your texts wrecks havoc on my way of quoting.

 

[Doveaman]

sounds like a great guy cant wait to meet him

You better be ready.

 

[MoonLancer]

You better be ready.

I have no fear. I have already discovered all possible dichotomies and outcomes. You threats are sad and I pity you. I hope your ready too. It would be a shame if god turns out to be just another god like all the gods of time long since past. But you cannot see. You have immortality to loose and that fear blinds you to the truth.

 

[Doveaman]

I have no fear. I have already discovered all possible dichotomies and outcomes. You threats are sad and I pity you. I hope your ready too. It would be a shame if god turns out to be just another god like all the gods of time long since past. But you cannot see. You have immortality to loose and that fear blinds you to the truth.

"truth"?

What is "truth"?

 

[AV1611VET]

I have no fear.

Don't think that's something to brag about.

This is Jesus' message to you then:

And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

 

[Nathan Poe]

But I do not resort to limiting God as you do.

Where have I limited God? Where have I ever stated something whcih God cannot do? I've only looked at what I've been presented and drawn conclusions as to what God did not do.

You, on the other hand, keep God subservient to your own wishes and desires by proclaiming with utter certainty that which God must have done, solely because you will it so.

See the difference?

 

[Nathan Poe]

As a matter of fact, I did.

Dad's "canals on Mars" wasn't good enough, and so I posited "beacons on Neptune."

Indeed -- you've gotten far more laughs. Much better.

Either way, it beats "The Flood didn't happen."

How so?

From my standpoint, a person who answers, "A pet theory of mine, is that the water went to..." has more respect with me than, "It didn't happen."I don't think that's what you guys are here for.

Your standpoint is conveniently -- and unsurprisingly -- self serving.

Like I said, if we all just started answering, "God did it", you guys wouldn't be here --- (in my opinion).

We'd probably move on in search of better comedy.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Neither is asking questions you know aren't covered by the Documentation.

Then the documentation is inadequate.

 

[MoonLancer]

"truth"?

What is "truth"?

That's a good question. If you keep asking yourself that rather then assuming you know what it is through faith instead of knowledge you may just find it.

Don't think that's something to brag about.

This is Jesus' message to you then:

and ignorance is? well I will surly listen to Jesus message if he had decency to diver it in person.

 

[Meshach]

I have to admit that this is one thing - really the only thing - that I sometimes regret at being an atheist.

When the debate is stuck, and - by my fault or by the stubborness of my opponent - I cannot make headway, I cannot simply rely on my divine master to simply kill those stupid and evil beings that dare disagree with me.

Not that I (often) would want to. I´d rather convince my opponents than slay them. But I can feel the appeal of such a position.

Killing is just soooo much more easy than convincing.

You are quite wrong in your assumptions. As well as loving, God is just, righteous and holy. Pull Him out of context and veiw Him with skepticism and you will ALWAYS have a distorted veiw of who God really is.

 

[MoonLancer]

You are quite wrong in your assumptions. As well as loving, God is just, righteous and holy. Pull Him out of context and veiw Him with skepticism and you will ALWYAS have a distorted veiw of who God really is.

What if we did the same for dictators? Praise them and worship them as just, without really taking into account or looking at their actions.

God must preform just actions in order to be just. He is not just without regard to his actions.

Otherwise, it is just an appeal to authority.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You are quite wrong in your assumptions. As well as loving, God is just, righteous and holy. Pull Him out of context and veiw Him with skepticism and you will ALWYAS have a distorted veiw of who God really is.

How do you equate "skepticism" with "out of context"?