Is God's existence necessary?

[Ben Dhyan]

I have provided you a scientific article. You didn't approve of it. What I have expressed on this thread is what scientists consider as fact. I assume a very intelligent person might prove current science about dark energy and gravity to be wrong, but that would be a fantastic discovery that would add to our understanding of gravity or denergy. Are you intending to make scientific discoveries in what is unknown about dark energy or gravity? If so, I would be interested in the avenue of your research and the progress of your work.

The only article you have posted came for the public affairs department of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics....iow...journalists...it was not a scientific paper...

 

[McBell]

No, my argument is you both are very quick to judge anyone giving a name of "God" to something while doing the same exact thing yourselves with "dark energy."

Where have I done that?
Seems you either have me mixed up with someone else or are perhaps making hasty assumptions?

"It is silly and stupid to believe in something that can't be directly measured, tested, observed(God) yet I will believe in something that cannot be directly measured, tested, and observed.. and take it even further by stating it is a fact and I know it exists(dark energy).

Interesting quote.
Who made said claim?
Hint, it was not me.

You guessed wrong, and cannot control your urges to assume.

You should not teach that which do not wish others to learn.

That was the entire point the entire time.

Asking someone to define "dark energy" is the equivalent of asking someone to define "God" as they would both be unable to be measured, observed, tested, and fact.

My point in asking you to define "dark energy" is to show your argument is not an argument but merely a nit picking over what the something being called dark energy is called.

So what do you call what scientists have labeled "dark matter"?
I flat out ask since the term itself is all you have been able to "argue" against....

 

[Shad]

False, it is all hypothetical that there even is "dark energy" and you're just adding to your debt by saying it also is hypothetically the cause for the universe expanding.

Lots of faith and belief here.

You confuse hypothetical, as in a made up scenario, with a hypothesis. One has no evidence as it is made up. One has evidence if not direct evidence. Dark matter and energy is the later not the former.

 

[Unification]

Where have I done that?
Seems you either have me mixed up with someone else or are perhaps making hasty assumptions?


Interesting quote.
Who made said claim?
Hint, it was not me.


You should not teach that which do not wish others to learn.


My point in asking you to define "dark energy" is to show your argument is not an argument but merely a nit picking over what the something being called dark energy is called.

So what do you call what scientists have labeled "dark matter"?
I flat out ask since the term itself is all you have been able to "argue" against....

You know what you have said before regarding that about others beliefs in the word used as "God." I don't have to go through your lists of posts to quote the hundreds of them. You've provided mathematical formula's for what you may have thought was direct measure of "dark energy" which lead to me to perceive that you believed in something not directly measurable, testable, and observable.

That quote was an indirect way of stating what some do and do not realize it.

I love and am perfectly fine with the name "dark energy." I also love and am perfectly fine with the name "dark matter."

 

[Unification]

You confuse hypothetical, as in a made up scenario, with a hypothesis. One has no evidence as it is made up. One has evidence if not direct evidence. Dark matter and energy is the later not the former.

Any hypothesis will still not assume anything as true or fact. There have been some facts stated regarding "dark energy" here. The scientific method states a hypothesis must be able to be tested. Can dark energy be directly tested?

"Dark energy" is still hypothetical.

There is evidence that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. The name given to its cause was "dark energy."

 

[Unification]

Gravity is the universe's attractive force (or one of them, it's a mystery).

Dark energy is the universe's repulsive force (or one of them, it's a mystery).

They've got two names for the two sets of numbers that mathematically describe how objects move.

I guess you can argue that objects aren't moving that way? I don't know how you would like to proceed in not believing in which ever one you're trying to say doesn't exist. Which one is it, again?

Never stated that one or both doesn't exist.

I acknowledge that I believe in what has been coined "dark energy."

 

[McBell]

That quote was an indirect way of stating what some do and do not realize it.

This is nothing more than a flimsy justification for assigning whatever you like to whomever you like whenever you like.
Too bad you did not read enough of the thread to understand the context...
Nice try though.

 

[Pudding]

now you seem confused....

Thanks for your vague reply.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

My point in asking you to define "dark energy" is to show your argument is not an argument but merely a nit picking over what the something being called dark energy is called.

The meaning of words does matter, unless we are going to say that apples are really oranges.

 

[Unification]

This is nothing more than a flimsy justification for assigning whatever you like to whomever you like whenever you like.
Too bad you did not read enough of the thread to understand the context...
Nice try though.

Bud, are you aware of the irony of that?

You summed it up well...only.. "The belief in dark energy is nothing more than a flimsy justification for assigning whatever you like to whatever you like whenever you like to."

There is nothing wrong with that, and sometimes it's necessary to do so. Speculate away, but understand and realize what is being done.

 

[Unification]

The meaning of words does matter, unless we are going to say that apples are really oranges.

The meaning of dark energy is what... without knowing what it is? Please do define the "nothingness" that it currently is .

The apples and oranges doesn't work with "dark energy."

 

[prometheus11]

The only article you have posted came for the public affairs department of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics....iow...journalists...it was not a scientific paper...

In was in layman sterns, yes, but it was science that discussed new ways of measuring dark energy. It was written by scientists who have dedicated their lives to working on dark energy.

You are wrong about dark energy according to science, and you refuse to accept scientific facts. It's not a problem, but you have rejected the science I have provided to you. Your choice.

 

[prometheus11]

Any hypothesis will still not assume anything as true or fact. There have been some facts stated regarding "dark energy" here. The scientific method states a hypothesis must be able to be tested. Can dark energy be directly tested?

"Dark energy" is still hypothetical.

There is evidence that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate. The name given to its cause was "dark energy."

All those statements can be made about gravity.

So really, what's your deal, here, concerning the hypothetical claims of gravity and dark energy?

 

[prometheus11]

Bud, are you aware of the irony of that?

You summed it up well...only.. "The belief in dark energy is nothing more than a flimsy justification for assigning whatever you like to whatever you like whenever you like to."

There is nothing wrong with that, and sometimes it's necessary to do so. Speculate away, but understand and realize what is being done.

Nope.

By watching objects move in predictable, measurable ways, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD demands some sort of names. Dark energy and gravity happen to be the names with which science labeled the mathematical formulas/models that describe the TESTABLE and PREDICTABLE movements of matter.

 

[prometheus11]

The meaning of dark energy is what... without knowing what it is? Please do define the "nothingness" that it currently is .

The apples and oranges doesn't work with "dark energy."

Do you seriously not understand what dark energy is doing?

Do you honestly think that dark energy is "nothingness?" LOLOLOL!!!

 

[prometheus11]

ben d,

I assume a very intelligent person might prove current science about dark energy and gravity to be wrong, but that would be a fantastic discovery that would add to our understanding of gravity or denergy. Are you intending to make scientific discoveries in what is unknown about dark energy or gravity? If so, I would be interested in the avenue of your research and the progress of your work.

 

[Unification]

In was in layman sterns, yes, but it was science that discussed new ways of measuring dark energy. It was written by scientists who have dedicated their lives to working on dark energy.

You are wrong about dark energy according to science, and you refuse to accept scientific facts. It's not a problem, but you have rejected the science I have provided to you. Your choice.

If you don't mind, can you provide that link one more time please.

 

[Unification]

Do you seriously not understand what dark energy is doing?

Do you honestly think that dark energy is "nothingness?" LOLOLOL!!!

Saying something is doing something in no way says what that something is. You do not know its "dark energy" doing that something. There are studies that eliminate dark energy and centralize on misperceptions of time, time dilation, and gravity.

Question for you, is the existence of "dark energy" necessary?

Nothingness was not meant in the context in which you're perceiving.

 

[Unification]

Nope.

By watching objects move in predictable, measurable ways, THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD demands some sort of names. Dark energy and gravity happen to be the names with which science labeled the mathematical formulas/models that describe the TESTABLE and PREDICTABLE movements of matter.

That is fine, but you're applying whatever you speculate on and believe it to be as the cause. Be aware of that.

There is no mathematical formula for dark energy. Many physicists believe it doesn't even exist.

You have made the choice to believe in its existence, which is wonderful and fine.

 

[prometheus11]

If you don't mind, can you provide that link one more time please.

I can, but I don't see the point. The type of people who are willing to argue so ignorantly about obvious principles that all of science takes for granted aren't the type to take any article seriously

Since we started discussing DE, I've looked up about eight articles on DE, but the language is so far beyond the language of this thread, that I've not bothered.

I've asked you several questions that you've not answered. Why not answer them? What is your problem with dark energy? Do you know what it does? Do you understand how it is measured?

It's ok if you don't know, but I can't correct your misconceptions if o don't know what they are, and throwing stones at any and every sentence that discusses DE isn't helpful and indicates a motive of mudslinging and willful ignorance.