Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation?

[sandwiches]

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.

Wrong. We know gravity comes from matter. Period. For instance, before we had the capability of detecting planets using visible light, we could detect them indirectly by observing the wobble they would effect on stars. So, no dice there.

We know for a fact where electricity comes from.

That's right, just like we know we're detecting gravity.

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

That's right just like we know we're detecting gravity.

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.

Let's not confuse yourself with actual scientists. You would've bee correct if you would've said "I do not know for a fact that what we're observing is gravity." Scientists KNOW it's gravity because there is no other currently known force which matches our current observations, that is unless you can put forth a testable model of this God-energy with which we can test and verify these gravitational fields we're detecting. Then, maybe you'll be able to topple this conspiracy of the evil dark matter.

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”

.

Gravity is at work here. From what? We don't know. It's current name for this source of gravity is 'dark matter' but you can call it God-matter, for all it matters.

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.

Call it whatever fancies you. This doesn't change the fact that something, out in space, is creating gravity without creating other currently observable radiation.

 

[Doveaman]

It's current name for this source of gravity is 'dark matter' but you can call it God-matter, for all it matters.

Well then 'God did it' constitutes an explanation.

 

[sandwiches]

Well then 'God did it' constitutes an explanation.

I guess you're in agreement with me that it's in name only, then. Much the same my car could be called a God-transport which runs on God-juice. So, it seems that what we've come to is that 'god did it' is merely a catch-all name, is all and not an actual explanation for natural, observable phenomena. As I said in an earlier post. A mere argument of nomenclature.

 

[Doveaman]

I guess you're in agreement with me that it's in name only, then. Much the same my car could be called a God-transport which runs on God-juice. So, it seems that what we've come to is that 'god did it' is merely a catch-all name, is all and not an actual explanation for natural, observable phenomena. As I said in an earlier post. A mere argument of nomenclature.

Nope.

It's just that Wiccan doesn't see my argument as relevant to this thread, so I'm honoring his wishes. My position remains.

 

[sandwiches]

Nope.

It's just that Wiccan doesn't see my argument as relevant to this thread, so I'm honoring his wishes. My position remains.

You're trying to equate the hypothesis of dark matter with 'god did it.' But you completely refuse to accept that one is verifiable and the other one isn't. If you know a way we can test and verify that your god is causing the gravity we're detecting, then by all means, please enlighten us.

 

[Doveaman]

You're trying to equate the hypothesis of dark matter with 'god did it.' But you completely refuse to accept that one is verifiable and the other one isn't. If you know a way we can test and verify that your god is causing the gravity we're detecting, then by all means, please enlighten us.

I don't believe it's gravity.

 

[Nathan Poe]

I don't believe it's gravity.

Your belief has been noted.

 

[Nathan Poe]

In a related story:

Dark Matter Detected for First Time?

 

[sandwiches]

I don't believe it's gravity.

If you have an alternate, verifiable explanation for gravitational lensing other than gravity, I'm sure physicists, cosmologists, astronomers would love to hear this idea, considering that there's verifiable evidence of lensing due to extreme gravitational sources.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If you have an alternate, verifiable explanation for gravitational lensing other than gravity, I'm sure physicists, cosmologists, astronomers would love to hear this idea, considering that there's verifiable evidence of lensing due to extreme gravitational sources.

Oh he'll go on about plasma this and electric that. It's all a bit tiring. But I've yet to see him explain away this:

But anyway, this is all sliding away from the topic...

 

[Doveaman]

But I've yet to see him explain away this...

Four quasars being ejected, or birthed, from the core of their parent galaxy (center), eventually becoming a galaxy cluster family.

But anyway, this is all sliding away from the topic...

Tempting, isn't it?

 

[Doveaman]

In a related story:

Dark Matter Detected for First Time?

I'll await the answer.

 

[Agonaces of Susa]

"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

 

[Wiccan_Child]

<staff edit>

Some say the Devil's greatest trick was convincing man he didn't exist.
I disagree.
I think the greatest trick he could play would be to convince the world that he is God, complete with his own Holy Text.

Christianity looks somewhat suspect in that light...

 

[JustMeSee]

Some say the Devil's greatest trick was convincing man he didn't exist.
I disagree.
I think the greatest trick he could play would be to convince the world that he is God, complete with his own Holy Text.

Christianity looks somewhat suspect in that light...

That is a very scary thought. Never knowing if a religious text is of the light or dark.

If an angel comes to visit me, how would I know that it wasn't sent by Satan?
Scary!

 

[Bushido216]

You've just stumbled upon an interesting scientific principle.

 

[AV1611VET]

If an angel comes to visit me, how would I know that it wasn't sent by Satan?

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:

First, in this dispensation, the Holy Spirit is the primary active Member of the Godhead, and His duty is to keep Satan and his fallen companions in check.

In Jesus' first advent, as noted in the Gospels, there was a high rate of Satanic activity going on (various persons possessed, maniac of Gadara, sons of Sceva incident [book of Acts]), but this came to a halt when the Holy Spirit took over.

Second, Satan and his minions tremble at God, and in view of what happened on earth to their "brothers" in Noah's time, I can imagine a fallen angel is going to think twice before messing with God's crowning creation.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

That is a very scary thought. Never knowing if a religious text is of the light or dark.

If an angel comes to visit me, how would I know that it wasn't sent by Satan?
Scary!

Exactly. Even if 'God' talks to you personally, how do you know it's actually God?

<staff edit>

Here's a couple of things to keep in mind:

First, in this dispensation, the Holy Spirit is the primary active Member of the Godhead, and His duty is to keep Satan and his fallen companions in check.

According to God and/or the Bible. But if God is actually Satan, and if the Bible was written by Satan, then it's not trustworthy, is it?

In Jesus' first advent, as noted in the Gospels, there was a high rate of Satanic activity going on (various persons possessed, maniac of Gadara, sons of Sceva incident [book of Acts]), but this came to a halt when the Holy Spirit took over.

Second, Satan and his minions tremble at God, and in view of what happened on earth to their "brothers" in Noah's time, I can imagine a fallen angel is going to think twice before messing with God's crowning creation.

See above.

 

[AV1611VET]

According to God and/or the Bible. But if God is actually Satan, and if the Bible was written by Satan, then it's not trustworthy, is it?

If It was written by Satan, no It would not be trustworthy.

However, the Bible portrays Satan as a defeated foe, a liar and a murderer.

It portrays Satan as making an attempt to get Its Author to bow down to him, and failing.

It then makes the point that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

In short, the Bible convinces Its readers to accept Jesus Christ, not Satan.

If Satan wanted all the glory, he could have simply kept his pen silent.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

If It was written by Satan, no It would not be trustworthy.

However, the Bible portrays Satan as a defeated foe, a liar and a murderer.

It portrays Satan as making an attempt to get Its Author to bow down to him, and failing.

It then makes the point that a house divided against itself cannot stand.

In short, the Bible convinces Its readers to accept Jesus Christ, not Satan.

If Satan wanted all the glory, he could have simply kept his pen silent.

I disagree. If Satan wanted the glory, he would invent a religion that exalted him and shunned the true God. He might invent a messiah. He might call this religion Christianity.

The Bible may convince its readers to accept Christ, but how do we know that the mass worship of Christ isn't antithetical to the real God? Perhaps the 'real' religion is Hinduism (say), and Christianity is just Satan's ploy to get people away from this true faith.

In other words, Satan's greatest trick is not to convince people that he doesn't exist, but to convince people that he's God.