Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[Agonaces of Susa]

LOL --- if I didn't think you were Consol, I'd give you one of my three favorite replies:

1. Care to plod through over 1,084,000 posts to see what I believe when it comes to science?
2. There is very little science I actually disagree with.
3. Scientists are [one of] God's gifts to mankind.

LOL.

I love you AV you're the best.

God bless you.

 

[AV1611VET]

LOL.

I love you AV you're the best.

God bless you.

--- awww --- thank you, bro!

Have some reps ---

 

[hangback]

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

You tell me if it's accurate, Nathan; instead of acting innocent.

Go ahead --- basic doctrine is ... well ... basic.

There's nothing hidden to the public; it's all in the storefront window for all to see.

What? Did I get a dispensation out of order? Or miss one? Or mislabel one?

Did I place one of God's natural attributes in a list of His moral attributes, or vice-versa?

When it comes to basic doctrine, you don't have to assume anything; you either know it, or you don't.

Just skip to the end, AV -- what have you mentioned that would help a seeker understand God?

Embedded age?
Water on Neptune to scare off renegade angels?
Behemoth is a dinosaur?

Because that's the kind of stuff you're usually spouting when you mutter something about "basic doctrine" and /thread out of a conversation. QV your own posts if you think otherwise.

One would think that by now you'd realize that your knowledge of Bible trivia doesn't pwn reality -- nor does it help you a whole lot on these boards.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just skip to the end, AV -- what have you mentioned that would help a seeker understand God?

How would I know? I'm not a seeker.

If I was a seeker (or an Agnostic), I would act like one.

I certainly wouldn't deny or hassle someone who is answering from the perspective of Dispensation Theology, King James Only, or Independent Fundamental.

I would at least respect his position, and in fact, be glad for him that he has settled the matter in his heart, and is no longer a seeker or Agnostic like I am.

The thing with you guys is, in my opinion, twofold:

1. You have no idea (and I can't stress "no idea" enough) what a true seeker, or a true Agnostic is. All you guys have is a superficial (and that's stretching it) dictionary understanding of the label you're carrying.
2. You guys are much too comfortable where you're at right now, and have no desire to change. Look at some of these guys here who have been here longer than I have; still calling themselves Agnostics --- and it's no secret why. Just listen to them talk about anything sacred, and you'll get the idea that they may be an Agnostic or Seeker for the rest of their lives.

Embedded age?
Water on Neptune to scare off renegade angels?
Behemoth is a dinosaur?

Of these three, Nathan, which one is basic doctrine, and which ones are ad lib answers to ad lib questions?

Do you even know the difference between basic doctrine and ad lib?

If you did, Poe's Law, as it applies to Theology, would be sterile, wouldn't it?

But the reason you mistakenly lumped a basic tenet in that list of ad libs, is because you have set up a mental block that is confusing you, and only you.

Like I have said before, you'll follow me around heckling me, and I don't really mind; but sooner or later you're going to make a faux pas or rookie error, and that's when I'm going to have my fun.

 

[Doveaman]

Yes it is an explanation. No it is not a scientific hypothesis, because it is not testable.

What about 'dark matter/energy'?

How about sticking to the topic?

I’m surprised you don’t see the relevance of my question.

You see 'neutrinos' as relevant to the topic of 'God did it' but you don’t see 'dark matter/energy' as relevant.

Maybe I need to elaborate.

Since "dark matter/energy did it" has not been and cannot be empirically tested but is still considered a scientific hypothesis then "God did it" can also be considered a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Doveaman]

No.

No what?

Care to elaborate?

 

[Doveaman]

I think it is rather an illusion of an explanation; something that only makes people think they had an answer to a question.

You mean like dark matter and dark energy?

 

[Split Rock]

I’m surprised you don’t see the relevance of my question.

You see 'neutrinos' as relevant to the topic of 'God did it' but you don’t see 'dark matter/energy' as relevant.

Maybe I need to elaborate.

Since "dark matter/energy did it" has not been and cannot be empirically tested but is still considered a scientific hypothesis then "God did it" can also be considered a scientific hypothesis.

Why do you claim that Dk and DM cannot be empirically tested? Of course they can. There is missing matter and energy. We have indirect evidence that points to this. The question is, will we find this missing matter and energy? If it turns out that there is no missing matter or energy, then the hypothesis will be rejected. Now let's look at Goddidit." How do we test that? Can we look for God and actually have a chance of finding Him? No. Therefore, "Goddidit" is not a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Skaloop]

Since "dark matter/energy did it" has not been and cannot be empirically tested

Really? I mean, we might not be able to test for dark matter right now, but that doesn't mean we won't ever be able to. Or that we can't find something that will one day show that dark matter cannot be a possible explanation.

but is still considered a scientific hypothesis then "God did it" can also be considered a scientific hypothesis.

But with "God did it" there is nothing that cannot be explained by it. Any finding, no matter what, could be attributed to God doing it.

 

[Split Rock]

You have no idea (and I can't stress "no idea" enough) what a true seeker, or a true Agnostic is. All you guys have is a superficial (and that's stretching it) dictionary understanding of the label you're carrying.

ALl you have is your definition that you want to use and you apply it to everyone else. That's why you "know" atheists worship nature. That why you "know" that we are all "creationists."

You guys are much too comfortable where you're at right now, and have no desire to change. Look at some of these guys here who have been here longer than I have; still calling themselves Agnostics --- and it's no secret why. Just listen to them talk about anything sacred, and you'll get the idea that they may be an Agnostic or Seeker for the rest of their lives.

You should be applying this analysis to yourself. You are way too comfortable being a creationist. You ignore everything that goes against it and resist every effort to teach you what science really is, or what The Bible really is. You already "know."

 

[Split Rock]

Like I have said before, you'll follow me around heckling me, and I don't really mind; but sooner or later you're going to make a faux pas or rookie error, and that's when I'm going to have my fun.

How nice that you are just waiting for the opportunity to have "fun" with people you believe are spiritually lost. You are such a good representative of Christian values. Jesus must be proud of you.

 

[Nathan Poe]

How would I know? I'm not a seeker.

If I was a seeker (or an Agnostic), I would act like one.

I suppose if you were interested in fulfilling the great Commission, you'd act like that as well.

Of these three, Nathan, which one is basic doctrine, and which ones are ad lib answers to ad lib questions?

Seeing as how there's no such thing as an ad lib question, they must all be "basic doctrine" -- at least in your mind.

Do you even know the difference between basic doctrine and ad lib?

Of course -- one of us has to.

Like I have said before, you'll follow me around heckling me, and I don't really mind; but sooner or later you're going to make a faux pas or rookie error, and that's when I'm going to have my fun.

Maintaining a self-erected illusion of superiority -- I suppose one must find their "fun" wherever they can.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

How would I know? I'm not a seeker.

If I was a seeker (or an Agnostic), I would act like one.

I certainly wouldn't deny or hassle someone who is answering from the perspective of Dispensation Theology, King James Only, or Independent Fundamental.

I would at least respect his position, and in fact, be glad for him that he has settled the matter in his heart, and is no longer a seeker or Agnostic like I am.

The thing with you guys is, in my opinion, twofold:

1. You have no idea (and I can't stress "no idea" enough) what a true seeker, or a true Agnostic is. All you guys have is a superficial (and that's stretching it) dictionary understanding of the label you're carrying.
2. You guys are much too comfortable where you're at right now, and have no desire to change. Look at some of these guys here who have been here longer than I have; still calling themselves Agnostics --- and it's no secret why. Just listen to them talk about anything sacred, and you'll get the idea that they may be an Agnostic or Seeker for the rest of their lives.

Of these three, Nathan, which one is basic doctrine, and which ones are ad lib answers to ad lib questions?

Do you even know the difference between basic doctrine and ad lib?

If you did, Poe's Law, as it applies to Theology, would be sterile, wouldn't it?

But the reason you mistakenly lumped a basic tenet in that list of ad libs, is because you have set up a mental block that is confusing you, and only you.

Like I have said before, you'll follow me around heckling me, and I don't really mind; but sooner or later you're going to make a faux pas or rookie error, and that's when I'm going to have my fun.

 

[Doveaman]

Why do you claim that Dk and DM cannot be empirically tested?

Because it has not been tested these pass many years.

Of course they can.

Then please give an empirical demonstration and not a hypothetical assumption.

There is missing matter and energy.

There is also missing God-energy.

We have indirect evidence that points to this.

We have indirect evidence that points to God-energy as well.

The question is, will we find this missing matter and energy?

The question also is, will we find this missing God-energy?

If it turns out that there is no missing matter or energy, then the hypothesis will be rejected.

And if it turns out that there is no missing God-energy, then this hypothesis will be rejected also.

Now let's look at Goddidit." How do we test that? Can we look for God and actually have a chance of finding Him? No. Therefore, "Goddidit" is not a scientific hypothesis.

If dark matter/energy does not exist you don’t have a chance of finding them either. You have not empirically demonstrated they exist, therefore from an empirical point of view they do not exist. It takes faith to believe they do. “God-energy did it” takes faith as well.

Really? I mean, we might not be able to test for dark matter right now, but that doesn't mean we won't ever be able to. Or that we can't find something that will one day show that dark matter cannot be a possible explanation.

It is presently being used as an explanation despite the fact that it has not been empirically verified to exist. From an empirical point of view dark-matter does not exist, just as God-energy is said to not exist empirically, but yet dark-matter is used as a hypothesis. How is that different from the “God-energy did it” hypothesis since both are said to be without empirical validation?

But with "God did it" there is nothing that cannot be explained by it. Any finding, no matter what, could be attributed to God doing it.

Many findings I space that does not have an empirical explanation can also be attributed to dark matter, dark energy, or dark holes.

 

[dewaddict84]

Hello, sorry to interrupt, but I see this from time to time, and I thought to myself, hey, why not dive into it again and straighten things up for the umpteenth time?

If dark matter/energy does not exist you don’t have a chance of finding them either. You have not empirically demonstrated they exist,

Uh huh. Yeah. We actually DO have empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter. In fact, that's the entire reason that the idea exists and the phrase was coined.

You see, there are these two ways to measure the universe. In one way, you take all the light/raditation that fall on the earth, calculate how many stars that is at what distance, and how massive they'd be and yada yada, and you have the mass of the universe. In the other way, you do measure the gravitational effect, and do some calculations, and you get the mass of the universe. These two numbers don't match. Not even close. THEREFORE some of the mass must not be emitting light/radiation. Planets certainly don't. Neither do asteroids. But those are small, and not that plentiful based off of modern cosmology.

But I'm pretty sure black holes answer this question. They don't emit radiation and they're really massive.

And with that out of the way, feel fre to carry on.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

We actually DO have empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter.

Yeah, it's right next to the invisible pink unicorn exhibit in Meinong's Jungle.

"It's not that most of the matter and energy in the universe is dark, but that most cosmologists are totally in the dark about the real nature of the universe." -- Wallace Thornhill, physicist, October 2006

Could you please send me some Dark Matter so that I might observe it and experiment on this mythological substance?

and you have the mass of the universe.

LOL.

You have a scale big enough to measure the mass of the universe?

Let's use some logic here: not even an angel could determine with mathematical rigor what the mass of the universe is.

some of the mass must not be emitting light/radiation. Planets certainly don't.

If planets don't emit light or radiation how do you know what color they are?

But I'm pretty sure black holes answer this question.

Black holes are imaginary. They do not exist in physical reality.

"Even mainstream scientists admit that at singularities the ‘laws of physics’ break down. It would be more accurate to say that their own theories break down." -- David Pratt, natural philosopher, 2005

"A study published in 1995, based on Hubble Space Telescope observations of 15 quasars, showed that 11 of them had no surrounding material that could fall into any hypothesized black holes, yet they were somehow producing intense radio emissions." -- Aard Bol, physicist, 2004

"I have little faith in the usual treatment of the black hole problem." -- Fred Hoyle, cosmologist, 1972

"...the 'Schwarzschild singularities' do not exist in physical reality." -- Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1939

Schwarzschild, K., On The Gravitational Field of a Mass Point According to Einstein's Theory, Jan 1916

Droste, J., The Field of a Single Centre In Einstein's Theory of Gravitation, and the Motion of a Particle In That Field, May 1916

Brillouin, M., The Singular Points of Einstein's Universe, Jan 1923

Merritt, D., Ferraresse, L., and Joseph, C.L., No Supermassive Black Hole in M33?, Science, Volume 293, Number 5532, Pages 1116-1118, Aug 2001

Antoci, S., David Hilbert and the Origin of the 'Schwarzschild Solution', Oct 2003

Thornhill, W., Black Holes Tear Logic Apart, Mar 2004

Meet the Indian who took on Steven Hawking, Rediff.Com, Aug 2004

Crothers, C.J., The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics, Dec 2004

Overbye, D., About Those Fearsome Black Holes? Never Mind, The New York Times, Jul 2004

Hogan, J., Hawking Cracks Black Hole Paradox, New Scientist, Jul 2004

Hogan, J., Hawking Concedes Black Hole Bet, New Scientist, Jul 2004

Hawking To Dispel Black Hole 'Myth', Guardian, Jul 2004

Arp, H.C., Astronomy By Press Release - News From A Black Hole, 2004

Schild, R.E., Leiter, D.J., and Robertson, S.L., Observations Supporting the Existence of an Intrinsic Magnetic Moment Inside the Central Compact Object Within the Quasar Q0957+561, Astrophysical Journal, 132, Pages 420-432, Feb 2006

Kiselev, V.V., Logunov, A.A., and Mestvirishvili, M.A., Holes: Theoretical Prediction or Fantasy?, Physics of Particles and Nuclei, Volume 37, Number 3, Pages 317-320, May 2006

Sample, I., US Team's Quasar Probe Sinks Black Hole Theory, The Age, Jul 2006

No Black Holes After All, Harvard-Smithsonian Center For Astrophysics, Aug 2006

Black Holes Light Up, Science Daily, Sep 2006

Battersby, S., Do Black Holes Really Exist?, New Scientist, Jun 2007

Keim, B., Black Holes Don't Exist Say Physicists, Wired, Jun 2007

Schild, R.E., Leiter, D.J., and Robertson, S.L., Direct Microlensing-Reverbation Observations of the Intrinsic Magnetic Structure of Active Galactic Nuclei In Different Spectral States: A Tale of Two Quasars, Astronomical Journal, 135, Pages 947-956, Feb 2008

Folger, T., Einstein Didn't Grok His Own Revolution, Discover, Mar 2008

Schild, R.E., and Leiter, D.J., Black Hole or MECO? Decided by a Thin Luminous Ring Structure Deep Within Quasar Q0957, Astrophysics, Jun 2008

Thornhill, W., The Black Hole at the Heart of Astronomy, Mar 2009

Black Hole Caught Zapping Galaxy Into Existence, Science Daily, Nov 2009

They don't emit radiation and they're really massive.

Alleged black holes emit radiation called "Hawking Radiation" and they also spew out galaxies.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/11/091130112413.htm

black holes may be "building" their own host galaxy.

 

[Doveaman]

Hello, sorry to interrupt, but I see this from time to time, and I thought to myself, hey, why not dive into it again and straighten things up for the umpteenth time?

Uh huh. Yeah. We actually DO have empirical evidence for the existence of dark matter. In fact, that's the entire reason that the idea exists and the phrase was coined.

You see, there are these two ways to measure the universe. In one way, you take all the light/raditation that fall on the earth, calculate how many stars that is at what distance, and how massive they'd be and yada yada, and you have the mass of the universe.

Good luck with that.

In the other way, you do measure the gravitational effect, and do some calculations, and you get the mass of the universe.

Good luck with that too.

Let me know the results when you are finished.

These two numbers don't match. Not even close. THEREFORE some of the mass must not be emitting light/radiation. Planets certainly don't. Neither do asteroids. But those are small, and not that plentiful based off of modern cosmology.

But I'm pretty sure black holes answer this question. They don't emit radiation and they're really massive.

And with that out of the way, feel fre to carry on.

If you can empirically demonstrate that black holes exists you might have a point. They don't.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Ladies and gents, please stick to the topic. If you want to debate the veracity of cosmological theories, or Christian canon, or eschatology, go make your own thread. Ta.

This is about the explanatory power of "Goddidit", no more, no less.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Does 'dark matter/energy' constitute an explanation?[/q It doesn't matter if it's an untestable one, but does it count as an explanation?

In that respect, is it a scientific hypothesis, albeit a woefully poor one?

Yes, though you're comparing apples and oranges: dark matter theory is testable, while the God hypothesis is not.

If it can be demonstrated that the universe was formed by another source other than God then wouldn’t God be falsifiable?

No: that there could be an explanation for the origin of the universe other than "Goddidit" doesn't make "Goddidit" necessarily falsifiable.

Unless you are convince there is no other source.

I'm not entirely convinced that there need be a source at all.