I have photons shifted by an expanding universe.
You just have redshifted photons. Your *faith* in an expanding universe is a pure act of faith in your own *interpretation* of the actual cause of that redshift.
The famous tu quoque fallacy once again. I see a Sun. Just a sun.
No, you see a "sun" with a whole ton of baggage about it's presumed composition, it's "functions", etc. You conceptualize a whole *theory* about that sun. You seem to resent it when I point out where empirical physics ends, and your faith in invisible friends begin. Why? Science isn't supposed to require acts of pure faith, whereas religion is supposed to require such an act of faith. They should *NOT* be exactly the same! In your case they are *exactly* the same. Without any justification as to cause, you simply point at the sky and claim. "My trilogy of invisible friends did it"!
You are telling me that it takes more faith to say that there is a Sun in the sky than to say that the Sun in the sky is a god. Really?
No, that's your own strawman. I never suggested that individual suns are "gods" to start with, that's your strawman. I was also discussing *cosmology*, not solar physics. I suppose that was your way of running from the fact that your cosmology beliefs require no less than three pure "acts of faith" in metaphysical (supernatural) entities whereas mine requires no such acts of faith. Even awareness shows up in a variety of lifeforms on Earth and "God" is not invisible or impotent on Earth like your invisible friends.
They aren't invisible, as has already been shown. Expansion redshifts photons that hit the Earth.
They are invisible which is why they are "dark" to begin with! That's one of the *attributes* you gave it! Since you cannot show that dark stuff even actually exists, let alone have any effect on a photon, you have no "evidence" at all that your invisible friends are the actual *cause* of redshift.
Let's see . . . you use faith as a derisive term . . .
It's only derisive to you because you're an atheist. "Faith" isn't a dirty word to me, I just don't think it should be required in "science".
you continually use a tu quoque fallacy to hide your lack of evidence for you claims
If I actually believed that faith was a derisive term, it might be a fallacy. Since I do not, it's not. I'm simply pointing out to you that your faith in invisible forms of matter and energy are more of an act of faith than I have in "God". I can "see" the God I believe in, and I can *personally experience* God on a daily basis.
. . . yeah, pretty much a failure.
Inflation failed to predict the non homogenous nature of our universe. "Dark matter" bit the dust at LHC and you can't even name a source of "dark energy". Yep, pretty much an *EPIC* failure.
