Is God's existence necessary?

[Guy Threepwood]

I don't understand what you are intending, here.

"we don't know of any other factors" so the superficial observation must be the final solution

it's yer basic fallacy

 

[prometheus11]

So you don't believe that Pluto orbits the sun?

After all, it's just an argument from ignorance that it does. (According to your "logic.")

 

[Guy Threepwood]

So you don't believe that Pluto orbits the sun?

After all, it's just an argument from ignorance that it does. (According to your "logic.")

Solar systems are a good example, we now know they, & the entire universe would collapse under classical physics alone, but not so long ago your exact same argument could have been (and was) given

"Because we don't know of any factors affecting solar systems other than classical physics, and we observe classical physics hourly in millions of physical interactions each day, and because Newton's laws are at the core of physics, there is no other "place" for the physics to come from."

The difference being that classical physics was infinitely more directly observable, measurable, repeatable than the vagaries of evolutionary speculation.
The similarity being that both took simple superficial observations and extrapolated them into complete unifying explanations for vastly more complex realities - violating the basic rule of entropy.

 

[prometheus11]

None of that makes any sense to me, Guy, in relation to what I am setting forth.

Science infers from the body of measurements it collects. Our measurements infer that Pluto probably orbits the sun, but we don't know it and we can't ever observe it.

As far as evolutionary instinct, it's a fundamental rule of biology. A species without an instinct for survival won't last to pass on its genes, so it won't do much evolving at all.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I'm not obfuscating at all. You are.

I've provided one way that dark energy is measured, but you don't accept it, so I'm uninterested in explaining the other ways it's measured.

What you cannot deny are the facts:

1. Gravity is NOT directly measured, but it's effects on matter are measured.

2. Dark energy is NOT directly measured, but it's effects on matter are measured.

Both gravity and dark energy are NAMES given to effects observed on matter.

Would you like for me to try to find a professor of physics in your area to discuss this with you???

Answer please.

Gravity IS measured directly..here is the formula....Fgrav = (Gm1m2)/d2 If you disagree....show me proof that the force of gravity can not measured...

Dark Energy is NOT measured directly or else you would be able to provide the formula....show me the formula or it does not exist...

 

[prometheus11]

No.

Gravity is measured by observing its effects on objects with mass. That is the ONLY way gravity can be measured. You look at a couple things with mass.

Same deal for dark energy. We look at stuff with mass moving around.

Both gravity and dark energy are understood as forces. Some scientists think that gravity and dark energy might be the same force working in an unknown way.

NEITHER the force of gravity NOR the force of dark energy are measured directly. We measure mass moving.

For the FIFTH TIME, would you like me to try to contact a physics professor in your area to help you with this?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Your transference is showing.
I have no faith in atheism.
atheist merely describes my lack of belief in a deity.

Yes,
You demonstrate the quote very well in this thread.

Well I am pleased we finally agree on something...I don't have any faith in atheism also...put it here buddy..

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

Gravity is measured by observing its effects on objects with mass. That is the ONLY way gravity can be measured. You look at a couple things with mass.

Same deal for dark energy. We look at stuff with mass moving around.

Both gravity and dark energy are understood as forces. Some scientists think that gravity and dark energy might be the same force working in an unknown way.

NEITHER the force of gravity NOR the force of dark energy are measured directly. We measure mass moving.

For the FIFTH TIME, would you like me to try to contact a physics professor in your area to help you with this?

Formula for dark energy measurement of it doesn't exist....

 

[Guy Threepwood]

None of that makes any sense to me, Guy, in relation to what I am setting forth.

Science infers from the body of measurements it collects. Our measurements infer that Pluto probably orbits the sun, but we don't know it and we can't ever observe it.

As far as evolutionary instinct, it's a fundamental rule of biology. A species without an instinct for survival won't last to pass on its genes, so it won't do much evolving at all.

So we have the observation, the measurements of an ordered universe, with solar systems.

The explanation for this was long based on those simplest superficial observations, which is very tempting. the ;ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named for how uncomfortable it was to finally accept that classical physics didn't explain the observations.

The idea that complex functional systems are just what you get if you take a lot of stuff, simple laws, time and space... is very tempting, we all want to know the answers.

But classical physics, and evolution most would argue, fail for the exact same reason: entropy, simple laws = simple results.

classical gravity alone would collapse all matter into the simplest homogenous static blob.- it absolutely needs a vast array of very specific instructions, telling matter exactly how to form great fusion reactors and specific complex elements necessary for life.

And so too for life, without specific instructions, blueprints to follow, classical evolution alone would, at best, collapse all life into a simple homogenous replicator. 'Survival of the fittest' does not in and of itself require 'production of increasingly complex forms' let alone a single being capable of pondering it all..

A species without an instinct for survival won't last to pass on its genes, so it won't do much evolving at all

and a star that does not produce carbon will not support us carbon life forms, and a car without an engine won't be very successful either- none of this suggests anything about accidental functionality in the slightest.

Must run though, will look to respond later but your replies not showing up in alerts for some reason?

 

[prometheus11]

Formula for dark energy measurement of it doesn't exist....

There are several possibilities as to the exact formula, but the reason those debates are occurring is because the entire field of science understand that a force is pushing objects at a measurable rate. That continual movement PROVES the presence of an unknown force. Scientists named that continual force as "dark energy," so if you can use that data to provide the best possible formula for dark energy, you will be a very famous mathematician indeed!!

Gravity is slightly better guessed about than dark energy, but there's no guarantees since we can't measure gravity directly either. You might possibly be able to provide a better explanation through evidence of better functioning formulas and become famous for those discoveries, too.

For the SIXTH time, would you like me to try to find a physicist on your area to help you understand this?

 

[prometheus11]

So we have the observation, the measurements of an ordered universe, with solar systems.

The explanation for this was long based on those simplest superficial observations, which is very tempting. the ;ultraviolet catastrophe' was so named for how uncomfortable it was to finally accept that classical physics didn't explain the observations.

The idea that complex functional systems are just what you get if you take a lot of stuff, simple laws, time and space... is very tempting, we all want to know the answers.

But classical physics, and evolution most would argue, fail for the exact same reason: entropy, simple laws = simple results.

classical gravity alone would collapse all matter into the simplest homogenous static blob.- it absolutely needs a vast array of very specific instructions, telling matter exactly how to form great fusion reactors and specific complex elements necessary for life.

And so too for life, without specific instructions, blueprints to follow, classical evolution alone would, at best, collapse all life into a simple homogenous replicator. 'Survival of the fittest' does not in and of itself require 'production of increasingly complex forms' let alone a single being capable of pondering it all..



and a star that does not produce carbon will not support us carbon life forms, and a car without an engine won't be very successful either- none of this suggests anything about accidental functionality in the slightest.

Must run though, will look to respond later but your replies not showing up in alerts for some reason?

Again, very little of that speaks to anything I am saying.

Nobody's talking about "accidental functionality" whatever that is

 

[Ben Dhyan]

There are several possibilities as to the exact formula, but the reason those debates are occurring is because the entire field of science understand that a force is pushing objects at a measurable rate. That continual movement PROVES the presence of an unknown force. Scientists named that continual force as "dark energy," so if you can use that data to provide the best possible formula for dark energy, you will be a very famous mathematician indeed!!

Gravity is slightly better guessed about than dark energy, but there's no guarantees since we can't measure gravity directly either. You might possibly be able to provide a better explanation through evidence of better functioning formulas and become famous for those discoveries, too.

For the SIXTH time, would you like me to try to find a physicist on your area to help you understand this?

Of course I understand how dark energy creates an anomaly with the gravitational field...that's how science discovered there is such a reality....but nothing that could be called a measurement... Now if it has been measured directly...please provide the evidence...

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Again, very little of that speaks to anything I am saying.

Nobody's talking about "accidental functionality" whatever that is

there is no other "place" for the survival instinct to come from.

I'm speaking to this fallacy, this argument from ignorance,

and demonstrating it using your own analogy of solar systems:

'no other place for stars to come from' but classical physics

 

[prometheus11]

Ben

Apparently you don't understand how dark energy creates anomalies or you'd be coresponding at a deeper level that evidenced a more compete understanding of the phenomena.

Again, dark energy is measured EXACTLY as gravity is measured. We observe their continual, consistent force on objects with mass.

So to recap, I've provided you with evidence AND you now know that gravity is NOT directly measurable.

For the SEVENTH time, would you like me to try to find a physics professor where you live to help you understand these facts?

 

[prometheus11]

I'm speaking to this fallacy, this argument from ignorance,

and demonstrating it using your own analogy of solar systems:

'no other place for stars to come from' but classical physics

But that isn't even wrong. Stars don't come from classical physics.

What exactly is your accusation?

Billions of atoms make up stars, so billions of atoms also make up galaxies.

Evolutionary process formed the brain and concepts of pain and damage, so evolutionary processes also form the collection of nerves that tell an animal to avoid danger and "survive." Nobody's suggesting that magical pink bunnies are playing a role, but if that were a serious consideration, we'd have another option for where survival instinct might come from.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

But that isn't even wrong. Stars don't come from classical physics.

.

exactly,

even though there was no other observable mechanism for stars to come from
even though classical physics was directly observed, easily tested and repeated
it utterly failed to account for physical reality, it was simply too simple.

Turns out that the development of stars was meticulously described in specific mathematical constants, literal self extracting archives of information, on a deeper level than we could observe or understand

Much to the chagrin of atheists who liked to claim classical physics left no room for God, a coincidence that Max Planck was a noted skeptic of atheism?

 

[prometheus11]

I don't even know what you're attempting to state. You're all over the place.

Classical physics is only one branch of science and it doesn't deal with what cannot be detected of measured consistently. (Gods or fairy farts or leprechaun suspenders). Classical physics has nothing at all to do with atheists or God believers. Why would it?

 

[McBell]

Formula for dark energy measurement of it doesn't exist....

(

)

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Ben

Apparently you don't understand how dark energy creates anomalies or you'd be coresponding at a deeper level that evidenced a more compete understanding of the phenomena.

Again, dark energy is measured EXACTLY as gravity is measured. We observe their continual, consistent force on objects with mass.

So to recap, I've provided you with evidence AND you now know that gravity is NOT directly measurable.

For the SEVENTH time, would you like me to try to find a physics professor where you live to help you understand these facts?

I would be happy for you providing evidence from a professor that dark energy can be directly measured....do it if you think one exists...

 

[McBell]

I don't even know what you're attempting to state. You're all over the place.

He is attempting to make argument without the faintest idea what he is talking about.
He does this quite often.