Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Neither is asking questions you know aren't covered by the Documentation.Well, not knowing and still making up claims is not a good way to debate.
Some people are hung up on God similarly.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.
I am following you so far, but if you have not verified the object, how can you conclude the effect is cased by it?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 guess this is where we differ.Mass -> force.
Well, I dont 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.Yet...
God -> ?
There is no mechanism, no causal relationship. There isn´t even an idea of such a thing.
All things being possible with God mean that with God all things are possible. It doesnt mean He will make all things possible. If He did, you cannot make any distinctions. No way to keep right from wrong.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.
So does Dark Matter did it."God did it." has the same explanatory value as "blue caused it".... none at all.
Nothing hypothetical can exert anything, except in our heads imaginary images.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.
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.You seem to assume that, because "dark matter" has not been observed, and it´s effects not measured, it could behave completely different.
You already know what a cube/die is and does base on tests. Not the same with dark matter.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.
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..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).
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 here you have it: hypothetical matter that has been observed to exert gravity.
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.
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.We accept both as a valid explanation, or we reject both.
And He will do it again, but this time by fire: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.
God doesn't kill. He simply takes back what He gave because we are not using it the way He intended.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.
It's possible because I do not view God as a mere "hypothesis". I view Him as real, because HE IS.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?
[/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?
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".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.
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.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.
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.If you want to call an assumption an explanation, fine, than I can assume “God did it” as an explanation.
As I said... repeatedly.. I do not assume that. So why do you still claim that I do?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.
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.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.
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.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.
God is atomless, transparent, scientifically undetectable - thus hypothetical, and thus, based on your reasoning, does not exist. Perhaps you should refine your reasoning.Does God exist?
Does He?
Well?
Does He?
If not, why not?
You already know what a cube/die is and does base on tests. Not the same with dark matter.
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?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.
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?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 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?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.
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.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.
You better be ready.
"truth"?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.
Don't think that's something to brag about.I have no fear.
Matthew 10:28 said: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.
But I do not resort to limiting God as you do.
As a matter of fact, I did.
Dad's "canals on Mars" wasn't good enough, and so I posited "beacons on Neptune."
Either way, it beats "The Flood didn't happen."
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.
Like I said, if we all just started answering, "God did it", you guys wouldn't be here --- (in my opinion).
Neither is asking questions you know aren't covered by the Documentation.
"truth"?
What is "truth"?
and ignorance is? well I will surly listen to Jesus message if he had decency to diver it in person.Don't think that's something to brag about.
This is Jesus' message to you then:
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 ALWYAS have a distorted veiw of who God really is.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?