Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[Doveaman]

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.

Scientists are of the view that there are invisible forces acting upon galaxies. Because they believe in cause and effect they conclude that something is causing those forces. Because they cannot empirically detect the causes they hypothesize those causes to be “dark mater/energy did it”.

Scientists also hypothesized the universe to have been caused by a Big Bang. Because some scientists (if not all) believe in cause and effect they conclude that something caused the Big Bang. Some of them hypothesize the cause of the Big Bang to be “God-energy did it”.

If it can be empirically demonstrated that another cause is producing the forces acting upon the galaxies then “dark matter/energy did it” would be falsified.

If it can be empirically demonstrated that another cause produced the Big Bang then “God-energy did it” would be falsified.

 

[hangback]

Perhaps it was “FSM-energy did it”? you know you might have something there.

And God said, "Let there be light" and there was light. And you could see for miles and miles and miles and not a bus anywhere.

 

[Doveaman]

Perhaps it was “FSM-energy did it”? you know you might have something there.

Are you referring to him:

.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Scientists are of the view that there are invisible forces acting upon galaxies. Because they believe in cause and effect they conclude that something is causing those forces. Because they cannot empirically detect the causes they hypothesize those causes to be “dark mater/energy did it”.

Which is a complete hash of how scientists actually concluded that dark matter and dark energy exist.

Scientists also hypothesized the universe to have been caused by a Big Bang. Because some scientists (if not all) believe in cause and effect they conclude that something caused the Big Bang. Some of them hypothesize the cause of the Big Bang to be “God-energy did it”.

Again, another bizarre parody of actual science. Causality has long been blown out of the water by quantum mechanics, and I challenge you to find a scientist who says "God-energy did it".

A Google search got me this hilarious piece of drivel.

If it can be empirically demonstrated that another cause is producing the forces acting upon the galaxies then “dark matter/energy did it” would be falsified.

If it can be empirically demonstrated that another cause produced the Big Bang then “God-energy did it” would be falsified.

That is not what 'falsification' means, so your point is moot.

 

[Doveaman]

Which is a complete hash of how scientists actually concluded that dark matter and dark energy exist.

I would be very happy to compare my explanation to yours.

How exactly did scientists come to their conclusions about dark matter/energy?

Again, another bizarre parody of actual science. Causality has long been blown out of the water by quantum mechanics, and I challenge you to find a scientist who says "God-energy did it".

I’m sure there are many scientists who are Theistic Evolutionists and are convinced "God-energy did it".

That is not what 'falsification' means, so your point is moot.

And how exactly is dark matter/energy falsifiable?

 

[hangback]

If an Atheist says anything bad about Christianity they are liable to be banned, what happens to Christians who bring Christianity into disrepute, do they get banned? some even turn Christianity into a laughing stock, Atheists could never do as much damage to Christianity as some of the Christians here.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If an Atheist says anything bad about Christianity they are liable to be banned,

They get several warnings, then they're banned.

what happens to Christians who bring Christianity into disrepute, do they get banned?

Yes.

some even turn Christianity into a laughing stock, Atheists could never do as much damage to Christianity as some of the Christians here.

Can't argue with you there.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I would be very happy to compare my explanation to yours.

How exactly did scientists come to their conclusions about dark matter/energy?

Through empirical observation and logical deduction of stellar mechanics, the details of which are for another thread.

I’m sure there are many scientists who are Theistic Evolutionists and are convinced "God-energy did it".

A theistic evolutionist accepts evolution, and sprinkles a bit of God on for good measure. Has absolutely nothing to do with the origin of the universe...

And how exactly is dark matter/energy falsifiable?

I think the most important question you need to ask is "What does 'falsifiable' mean?". Once you've figured that one out, go to my physics thread and ask your physics question (and, y'know, stop derailing this thread).

 

[Doveaman]

Through empirical observation and logical deduction of stellar mechanics, the details of which are for another thread.

I think the most important question you need to ask is "What does 'falsifiable' mean?". Once you've figured that one out, go to my physics thread and ask your physics question

Did you know that avoiding the questions make you look as though you are avoiding the questions?

(and, y'know, stop derailing this thread).

That "dark matter did it" is very much relevant to the "God did it" topic.

Is it fine for you to use neutrinos as an example but I am not allowed to use dark matter as an example?

The fact of the matter is that scientists believe galaxies are oh-so gravity dependent, and because there is not enough visible matter to produce the amounts of gravity required they conclude that the rest of the matter needed is invisible or dark, therefore “dark matter did it”.

Since “dark matter” has not been detected or empirically verified to exist then it’s nothing more than a big assumption or guess. Since it is only a big assumption or guess then my guess is just as valid. And my guess is that “God-energy did it”.

Of course “God-energy” has not been detected or empirically verified to exist, but neither has “dark matter”. And since the undetected, unverified “dark matter did it” hypothesis is considered to be a viable scientific hypothesis then the “God-energy did it” hypothesis is also viable.

 

[sandwiches]

Did you know that avoiding the questions make you look as though you are avoiding the questions?
That "dark matter did it" is very much relevant to the "God did it" topic.

Is it fine for you to use neutrinos as an example but I am not allowed to use dark matter as an example?

The fact of the matter is that scientists believe galaxies are oh-so gravity dependent, and because there is not enough visible matter to produce the amounts of gravity required they conclude that the rest of the matter needed is invisible or dark, therefore “dark matter did it”.

Since “dark matter” has not been detected or empirically verified to exist then it’s nothing more than a big assumption or guess. Since it is only a big assumption or guess then my guess is just as valid. And my guess is that “God-energy did it”.

Of course “God-energy” has not been detected or empirically verified to exist, but neither has “dark matter”. And since the undetected, unverified “dark matter did it” hypothesis is considered to be a viable scientific hypothesis then the “God-energy did it” hypothesis is also viable.

We know for a fact (observation) that there's sources of gravity in space that we're unable to detect through radiation sensors, such as visible light, gamma radiation, x-rays, etc. The stuff creating these gravitational fields is called 'dark matter.' Do you want us to change the name to 'God matter?' Is it just a problem of nomenclature, for you?

 

[Doveaman]

We know for a fact (observation) that there's sources of gravity in space that we're unable to detect through radiation sensors, such as visible light, gamma radiation, x-rays, etc. The stuff creating these gravitational fields is called 'dark matter.' Do you want us to change the name to 'God matter?' Is it just a problem of nomenclature, for you?

How do you know for a fact that it is gravitational fields you are observing, and not God-energy fields?

 

[sandwiches]

How do you know for a fact that it is gravitational fields you are observing, and not God-energy fields?

Because we know what gravity's effects are and what it does.

Do you also question whether your computer is powered by electricity or God-energy? Do you wonder if your dog is really a dog or a God-entity?

Again, are you arguing naming conventions or are you truly unable to make decisions and determinations based upon observations and knowledge?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Did you know that avoiding the questions make you look as though you are avoiding the questions?

That's tautologous, so yes.

That "dark matter did it" is very much relevant to the "God did it" topic.

Is it fine for you to use neutrinos as an example but I am not allowed to use dark matter as an example?

Yes: I used neutrinos to illustrate the arbitrary boundaries between 'natural' and 'supernatural', thus remaining on-topic. You simply attacked the dark matter hypothesis.

The fact of the matter is that scientists believe galaxies are oh-so gravity dependent, and because there is not enough visible matter to produce the amounts of gravity required they conclude that the rest of the matter needed is invisible or dark, therefore “dark matter did it”.

Since “dark matter” has not been detected or empirically verified to exist then it’s nothing more than a big assumption or guess. Since it is only a big assumption or guess then my guess is just as valid. And my guess is that “God-energy did it”.

Of course “God-energy” has not been detected or empirically verified to exist, but neither has “dark matter”. And since the undetected, unverified “dark matter did it” hypothesis is considered to be a viable scientific hypothesis then the “God-energy did it” hypothesis is also viable.

Your analogy is flawed, in that you presume the dark matter hypothesis has no empirical support and is thus on par with 'Goddidit'. Besides this being an overly simplistic analogy (more than empirical support separates them), it's also wrong: there is empirical support for the former hypothesis, though that is a discussion for another time, and another thread.

Moreover, I daresay you didn't bring up dark matter for anything germane; your beef with it is well known, and you bring it up in every thread. So please stick on topic.

 

[Doveaman]

Because we know what gravity's effects are and what it does.

We also know that gravity is generated by detectable matter. So your assumption that it is gravity is faith based and not empirically based, which is no different from the faith based “God-energy did it” hypothesis.

Do you also question whether your computer is powered by electricity or God-energy?

We know for a fact where electricity comes from.

Do you wonder if your dog is really a dog or a God-entity?

We also know for a fact that it’s a dog.

We do not know for a fact that dark matter is real matter, and therefore we do not know for a fact that what we are observing is gravity generated by dark-matter. It could just as well be God-energy.

Again, are you arguing naming conventions or are you truly unable to make decisions and determinations based upon observations and knowledge?

Names are relevant if there is something to apply a name to.

“Dark matter” is not a name, it’s an excuse, an apology that says to the tax paying public “We are sorry, but we don’t have a clue what we are observing”

.

I’m sure "God-energy did it" would make a lot more sense to a lot more people and would therefore be a more viable scientific hypothesis.

 

[Doveaman]

Your analogy is flawed, in that you presume the dark matter hypothesis has no empirical support and is thus on par with 'Goddidit'. Besides this being an overly simplistic analogy (more than empirical support separates them), it's also wrong: there is empirical support for the former hypothesis, though that is a discussion for another time, and another thread.

Moreover, I daresay you didn't bring up dark matter for anything germane; your beef with it is well known, and you bring it up in every thread. So please stick on topic.

I'm sure you would conclude all my posts are an attack on dark matter, which is not my intention here. I'm simply showing the similarity between "dark-matter did it" and "God-energy did it". But since, as you say, this is not the thread to do so (perhaps because I'm making sense), then the similarity cannot be properly demonstrated.

Trying to empirically verify that dark-matter is real is like trying to empirically verify that God-energy is real. So if dark matter can be considered a scientific hypothesis, then so can God-energy.

 

[Cabal]

“Dark matter” is not a name, it’s an excuse, an apology that says to the tax paying public “We are sorry, but we don’t have a clue what we are observing”

.

As opposed to....what? Creationists who claim to know all the answers but don't have a clue full stop?

You think scientists shouldn't be honest about their levels of knowledge?

I’m sure "God-energy did it" would make a lot more sense to a lot more people and would therefore be a more viable scientific hypothesis.

No, science is not dependent on the whim of the public - and is much the better for it.

 

[hangback]

Trying to empirically verify that dark-matter is real is like trying to empirically verify that God-energy is real. So if dark matter can be considered a scientific hypothesis, then so can God-energy.

Don't forget FSM-energy because that's as real as God-energy.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I'm sure you would conclude all my posts are an attack on dark matter, which is not my intention here. I'm simply showing the similarity between "dark-matter did it" and "God-energy did it".

Your analogy only works is agree with your analysis of dark matter. We could agree for sake of argument, but don't let it go to your head.

But since, as you say, this is not the thread to do so (perhaps because I'm making sense), then the similarity cannot be properly demonstrated.

You really have no sense of modesty or humility, do you?

 

[Doveaman]

You really have no sense of modesty or humility, do you?

I have a little bit of both, but they don't always show up.

 

[Nathan Poe]

We also know that gravity is generated by detectable matter. So your assumption that it is gravity is faith based and not empirically based, which is no different from the faith based “God-energy did it” hypothesis.
We know for a fact where electricity comes from.
We also know for a fact that it’s a dog.

We do not know for a fact that dark matter is real matter, and therefore we do not know for a fact that what we are observing is gravity generated by dark-matter. It could just as well be God-energy.
Names are relevant if there is something to apply a name to.

“Dark matter” is not a name, it’s an excuse, an apology that says to the tax paying public “We are sorry, but we don’t have a clue what we are observing”

.

I’m sure "God-energy did it" would make a lot more sense to a lot more people and would therefore be a more viable scientific hypothesis.

because "God-energy" is something completely different from “We are sorry, but we don’t have a clue what we are observing”

" how, exactly?