god created man

[Upisoft]

I had a cheeseburger the other day.

What was the cow that was killed to provide it guilty of?

Did your God killed the cow? If not, your example can take a hike.

It was nice though that in your mind a man killing a cow is the same as God killing a cow. C'mon, a little more pride and you'll be there...

 

[Doveaman]

From what I understand (I'm an ex-Christian), it was sort of a propaganda mechanism to say 'my God, Yahweh, is stronger than your gods'. One facet of this is that the first few plagues were repeatable on a smaller scale by the Egyptian sorcerers. Than Yahweh kicks it into the next gear with plagues that they cannot reproduce even on a small scale.

In other words, Yahweh scientifically verified His existence by providing a test that was not repeatable by the so-called Egyptian gods.

Which reminds me of the dark, invisible, undetectable gods of big bang cosmology.

 

[AV1611VET]

Did your God killed the cow? If not, your example can take a hike.

It was nice though that in your mind a man killing a cow is the same as God killing a cow. C'mon, a little more pride and you'll be there...

Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

 

[Matthew712]

In other words, Yahweh scientifically verified His existence by providing a test that was not repeatable by the so-called Egyptian gods.

Which reminds me of the dark, invisible, undetectable gods of big bang cosmology.

Well no, the story in Exodus is most likely fiction. From a literary standpoint the plagues show that the Hebrew God is much more powerful than the Egyptian pantheon, even in the Egyptian homeland (the ancient Hebrews were polytheists, and had the idea that gods had [boundaries] to their power, as seen in the Babylonian exile when they complained that they couldn't worship their god in a foreign land).

Luckily for the big bang no gods are needed, just good data and science.

 

[Upisoft]

Psalm 24:1 The earth is the LORD'S, and the fulness thereof; the world, and they that dwell therein.

1 Corinthians 10:28 But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shewed it, and for conscience sake: for the earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof:

Then you have certainly made a big mistake. They kill cows as a sacrifice to little green idols made of paper. With numbers on them.

 

[Nostromo]

Because the Jews were in Egypt at the time?

And that makes a difference because...?

From what I understand (I'm an ex-Christian), it was sort of a propaganda mechanism to say 'my God, Yahweh, is stronger than your gods'.

Yeah, I got that bit oddly enough. The thing is, he's talking to the Jews, who know there's only one god and that the Egyptian gods aren't real.

 

[Doveaman]

Luckily for the big bang no gods are needed, just good data and science.

A universe sustained by dark, invisible, undetectable matter and dark, invisible, undetectable energy sounds to me like a universe sustained by dark, invisible, undetectable gods.

 

[Matthew712]

Yeah, I got that bit oddly enough. The thing is, he's talking to the Jews, who know there's only one god and that the Egyptian gods aren't real.

The Jews started off as polytheists, and they believed in many gods during the exodus. If you recall, after they got out of Egypt they wandered around for a while, eventually Moses goes up to Mt. Sinai, gets the 10 commandments, comes back down to find some of the Jews worshiping a golden calf idol. This, and other oddities (like the first commandment itself says "don't have any other gods before me", and Exodus 18:11 talks about God being greater than all the other gods), are a testament/remnant to the polytheism of the ancient Jews.

Something called "higher criticism", essentially applying mainstream secular literary analysis to the Bible, shows that much of the Old Testament has been edited to give the appearance of monotheism to older polytheistic writings.

 

[Matthew712]

A universe sustained by dark, invisible, undetectable matter and dark, invisible, undetectable energy sounds to me like a universe sustained by dark, invisible, undetectable gods.

I wouldn't use the word "sustained" myself, they exert a force within the universe. And it is indeed detectable, how else do you think scientists know of it? I'd post a pick of two galaxies colliding known as the "bullet cluster" that shows normal matter in the middle (usually pinkish), yet most of the mass is outside (usually depicted in blue). Kinda hard to explain it without dark matter, but I need almost 40 more posts to put up pics or links.

 

[Doveaman]

I wouldn't use the word "sustained" myself,

Can your universe exists as it is without your 96% metaphysics?

they exert a force within the universe. And it is indeed detectable, how else do you think scientists know of it?

How do you know it's not God-energy exerting the force?

I'd post a pick of two galaxies colliding known as the "bullet cluster" that shows normal matter in the middle (usually pinkish), yet most of the mass is outside (usually depicted in blue). hard to explain it without dark matter,

If dark matter cannot be seen then how can it be blue?

but I need almost 40 more posts to put up pics or links.

Don't bother. I've probably seen those pics before. There's nothing wrong with the pics. It's your explanation that's bankrupt.

 

[Matthew712]

57270437]Can your universe exists as it is without your 96% metaphysics?

I don't think dark matter/energy is considered metaphysics.

How do you know it's not God-energy exerting the force?

As a panentheist I believe every force is God driven. The data shows that there is something out there, scientists call it dark matter, I suppose you could call it God-energy/matter save the semantics and oddities such a term implies. No stranger than saying it's leprechaun-energy influencing the rotation of galaxies and such.

If dark matter cannot be seen then how can it be blue?

It's depicted as blue in the pic I wanted to show - essentially a region surrounding the cluster that doesn't emit light yet has very strong gravity. To show where the region is they made it blue.

Don't bother. I've probably seen those pics before. There's nothing wrong with the pics. It's your explanation that's bankrupt.

How is dark matter bankrupt?

 

[Lion Hearted Man]

Tantalus couldn't trick them, but they were good enough at fooling each other. Like, Zeus's dad fell for the lamest trick on earth. So at least in some myths, they clearly aren't omniscient.

Well, aside from the way Osiris was tricked into getting into his own coffin, there were also some interesting beliefs about the judging of dead people's souls. It looks like you could get Egyptian gods to admit you into the afterlife by saying the right things and not letting your heart confess your sins.

Egyptian pantheon > current gods. The Book of the Dead is awesome. I would totally make it into the Egyptian afterlife; after all, I have not dammed the Nile.

 

[Doveaman]

I don't think dark matter/energy is considered metaphysics.

You haven’t seen it, you haven’t touch it, you haven’t experiment with it in a lab, you haven’t detected it in any form or fashion. What you observe are effects (rotation curves and redshift) but you have not establish an empirical link between those effects and your dark, metaphysical brands of matter and energy. You cannot just claim that something did it without showing what did it or how it did it. This is nothing more than goddidit with new names.

As a panentheist I believe every force is God driven.

But if you cannot empirically verify how he did it then it’s not science, it is faith.

The data shows that there is something out there, scientists call it dark matter, I suppose you could call it God-energy/matter save the semantics and oddities such a term implies. No stranger than saying it's leprechaun-energy influencing the rotation of galaxies and such.

Goddidit was doing quite well for centuries until scientists came along and changed it to dark-matter/energydidit even though the results are the same. In other words, what scientists are claiming is not new, they are just referring to it by other terms so as not to sound religious. But I’m not fooled.

It's depicted as blue in the pic I wanted to show - essentially a region surrounding the cluster that doesn't emit light yet has very strong gravity. To show where the region is they made it blue.

How do you even know it is gravity? You are just building one assumption upon another.

Assumption #1: Gravity.

Assumption #2: Matter.

Assumption #3: Dark.

The fact that you cannot detect enough mass to produce the amounts of gravity needed should cause you to question your assumptions. I know I do.

How is dark matter bankrupt?

Because there is none in the bank. Do you have any? Do you know of anyone that has any? Do you even know where I can find some?

 

[Naraoia]

Doveaman, it just struck me how similar you and Michael sound. You two should apply for a research grant together.

 

[Doveaman]

Doveaman, it just struck me how similar you and Michael sound. You two should apply for a research grant together.

We just like to see a clear distinction between science and the gods. Is that unreasonable?

 

[Matthew712]

You haven’t seen it, you haven’t touch it, you haven’t experiment with it in a lab, you haven’t detected it in any form or fashion. What you observe are effects (rotation curves and redshift) but you have not establish an empirical link between those effects and your dark, metaphysical brands of matter and energy. You cannot just claim that something did it without showing what did it or how it did it. This is nothing more than goddidit with new names.

I don't think you understand what metaphysics is. We observe the effects, and based on those effects scientists come up with explanations. That is called science, not metaphysics.

Goddidit was doing quite well for centuries until scientists came along and changed it to dark-matter/energydidit even though the results are the same. In other words, what scientists are claiming is not new, they are just referring to it by other terms so as not to sound religious. But I’m not fooled.

Well a few centuries ago scientists didn't have the information they do now; there was no way to include dark matter/energy into any equation or conception of the universe if you go back much more than a hundred years. Besides, godditit isn't an explanation but a lack of one. If you want to throw up your hands and give up go ahead, thankfully there are people who enjoy utilizing the scientific method.

How do you even know it is gravity? You are just building one assumption upon another.

Assumption #1: Gravity.

Assumption #2: Matter.

Assumption #3: Dark.

The fact that you cannot detect enough mass to produce the amounts of gravity needed should cause you to question your assumptions. I know I do.

I wasn't aware that gravity, matter and things that don't emit light were assumptions

Because there isn't enough normal matter to produce the observations we see, something in our understanding is missing. Again, if you want to just say goddidit and sully anyone that wants to get a more comprehensive view of the universe go ahead. Just don't expect too many people to take you seriously, especially scientists or anyone that knows a thing or two about science.

Because there is none in the bank. Do you have any? Do you know of anyone that has any? Do you even know where I can find some?

I know where you can find it, it surrounds every galaxy. If I could show you the pic of the bullet cluster (or you can google it yourself, only takes a sec, and it's not the only one observed either, i.e. cluster MACS J0025) you can see where most of the gravity is, and it isn't where the normal matter is. Not to mention that large scale structures in the universe don't make sense unless you have dark matter, or even the fact that galaxies exist doesn't make sense without dark matter (unless the universe is incredibly young, which defies much more supported and verified science).

 

[Doveaman]

I don't think you understand what metaphysics is. We observe the effects, and based on those effects scientists come up with explanations. That is called science, not metaphysics.

Unless you can establish an empirical link between cause and effects then it’s nothing more than faith in the unseen, not science.

Well a few centuries ago scientists didn't have the information they do now;

What information? You are now trying to find what you claim already exists.

there was no way to include dark matter/energy into any equation or conception of the universe if you go back much more than a hundred years. Besides, godditit isn't an explanation but a lack of one.

Likewise dark matter/energy are nothing more than gap-fillers designed to fill in for scientific ignorance - goddidit all over again with new names.

If you want to throw up your hands and give up go ahead, thankfully there are people who enjoy utilizing the scientific method.

The scientific method involves experiments. Where can I find some dark matter/energy to experiment on so I can know it's real and not a figment of your imagination?

I wasn't aware that gravity, matter and things that don't emit light were assumptions

But you have not yet “proven” that it is gravity and matter that is not emitting light. You are assuming it is gravity and matter that is not emitting light.

Because there isn't enough normal matter to produce the observations we see, something in our understanding is missing.

You are correct -- something in your understanding is indeed missing -– but nothing in the universe is missing.

Again, if you want to just say goddidit and sully anyone that wants to get a more comprehensive view of the universe go ahead. Just don't expect too many people to take you seriously, especially scientists or anyone that knows a thing or two about science.

Actually, it is you that is saying “goddidit”, you are just using scientific terms. Since your dark matter/energy claims has a much empirical support as “goddidit” then there is no difference.

I know where you can find it, it surrounds every galaxy. If I could show you the pic of the bullet cluster (or you can google it yourself, only takes a sec, and it's not the only one observed either, i.e. cluster MACS J0025) you can see where most of the gravity is, and it isn't where the normal matter is.

What you are seeing in the pic is not what you are seeing in the universe since dark matter cannot be seen. The pic is designed to keep gullible people like you in the dark.

Not to mention that large scale structures in the universe don't make sense unless you have dark matter, or even the fact that galaxies exist doesn't make sense without dark matter (unless the universe is incredibly young, which defies much more supported and verified science).

The universe is composed of plasma, over 99% of it, and EM fields move plasma. We know EM fields exists in the universe, but your dark matter/energy stuff no one knows. Occam's razor encourages us to fully explore what we know before assuming things we don't know.

 

[Doveaman]

I know where you can find it, it surrounds every galaxy. If I could show you the pic of the bullet cluster (or you can google it yourself, only takes a sec

I'd post a pick of two galaxies colliding known as the "bullet cluster" that shows normal matter in the middle (usually pinkish), yet most of the mass is outside (usually depicted in blue). Kinda hard to explain it without dark matter

Is this the pic you are referring to?

Is this what I would see in the sky if I looked through a telescope, or is that just make-believe blue light? You can't just make up stuff, you know.

 

[Upisoft]

Is this the pic you are referring to?

Is this what I would see in the sky if I looked through a telescope, or is that just make-believe blue light? You can't just make up stuff, you know.

You would see more or less this without blue and red colored regions.

 

[Matthew712]

Unless you can establish an empirical link between cause and effects then it’s nothing more than faith in the unseen, not science.

I'm not sure what you mean by this, can you give an example of how one would go about testing this?

What information? You are now trying to find what you claim already exists.

Likewise dark matter/energy are nothing more than gap-fillers designed to fill in for scientific ignorance - goddidit all over again with new names.

As I already said, more than a hundred years ago scientists were ignorant of nearly everything that had to do with dark matter/energy, do you think that scientific information is static over centuries?

They are more than just gap-fillers, they correlate incredibly well with observations and make predictions that pan out (a sign of a truly successful scientific theory/model). IOW, dark matter/energy (I know you're clumping them together, but they really are separate ideas and must be addressed separately) are testable and they've passed the test. That is called science, it's too bad you don't seem to have a firm grasp on the basics of science, it is a fascinating subject IMHO.

The scientific method involves experiments. Where can I find some dark matter/energy to experiment on so I can know it's real and not a figment of your imagination?

Do you think that unless we can experiment on something in a lab it isn't science?

But you have not yet “proven” that it is gravity and matter that is not emitting light. You are assuming it is gravity and matter that is not emitting light.

Well no, scientists can tell that gravity is present through gravitational lensing (unless general relativity is also an unfounded assumption these days ), which is how (at least one way) scientists are able to map out the amount of gravity (as how objects are distorted is based on how strong the gravitational field is) and where when it comes to objects like the bullet cluster pic you've posted.

Actually, it is you that is saying “goddidit”, you are just using scientific terms. Since your dark matter/energy claims has a much empirical support as “goddidit” then there is no difference.

There is a lot of scientific support for the two, just because you are ignorant and/or don't want to know about it doesn't make it go away, it just cuts you off from reality.

What you are seeing in the pic is not what you are seeing in the universe since dark matter cannot be seen. The pic is designed to keep gullible people like you in the dark.

I suppose gravitational lensing is also a scientific conspiracy to keep people like me in the dark, and that's why scientists teach these things in university.

The universe is composed of plasma, over 99% of it, and EM fields move plasma. We know EM fields exists in the universe, but your dark matter/energy stuff no one knows. Occam's razor encourages us to fully explore what we know before assuming things we don't know.

And what plasma explains (and what MOND explains) is very limited to the point that it is actually a much worse explanation than dark matter. Occam's razor states that when all things are equal we should go with the explanation that utilizes the least assumptions, however the explanations are no where near equal therefore Occam's razor is incorrectly invoked here.