Is God's existence necessary?

[McBell]

Yes, the unknown that is causing the expansion of the universe in acceleration.

that unknown is currently being called "dark energy".
Any other questions?

 

[McBell]

You really do not know what it is... you know the name given to it.

I never made any claim otherwise.

Because a name was given/assigned to something, doesn't make its existence a matter of fact. This is no different than saying its a matter of fact that rainbow unicorns exist because they were given/assigned a name.

You have it backwards.
The matter of fact something, which next to nothing is known about, was given a name.
Nice try though.

Sure, they all are hypotheses.

Lol, why does there have to be a "cause" for the universe expanding. Why not call it "spontaneous" and leave it alone?

I have never once in my life have made any claim to there being, let alone having to be, a cause.
Is it you have me confused with another member or are you once again trying to put words in my mouth?
I notice you did not answer the question....

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That Hawking fellow is such a dolt, eh Bendy?

<Source linkey-poo>

No YmirGFy....he is not a dolt....but he is human after all and like most humans they tend to see reality anthropomorphically....everything that man and sees around him has a beginning and there are no exceptions...therefore there has to be a beginning to the universe itself....and that includes many of the followers of institutional religions...but instead of imagining the cause of the big bang as an unknowable mystery like the atheists...they imagine it was caused by God. Either way it is an anthropomorphic way of reasoning.. for there was no beginning to the universe, nor could there be for many reasons....one of which would be for the need to explain where all that exists disappears to at time zero going backwards, or comes from going forward...and it is not doable under any rational, logical, or scientific circumstances...

 

[Unification]

I never made any claim otherwise.


You have it backwards.
The matter of fact something, which next to nothing is known about, was given a name.
Nice try though.


I have never once in my life have made any claim to there being, let alone having to be, a cause.
Is it you have me confused with another member or are you once again trying to put words in my mouth?
I notice you did not answer the question....

"We do know what that something is." "It is dark energy." The claim that it's a fact that "dark energy" is doing it, is no different than any claim that says God is doing it. The gap has been filled and all sorts of hypothesis follow on something that can't be detected, measured, and tested directly. Just as "God" couldn't.

Which holds the same credibility of saying that someone knows what that something is and assigning the name God to it.

Lol, I'm just being that pest.... if you haven't realized by now... some are doing the exact same thing for dark energy as some do for God. The same people that laugh and judge others for doing that with an assigned name of "God" are doing the same exact thing for the assigned name of "dark energy."

 

[McBell]

Lol, I'm just being that pest....

Fair enough.
Cannot fault a person for that.

if you haven't realized by now... some are doing the exact same thing for dark energy as some do for God.

Fair enough.

The same people that laugh and judge others for doing that with an assigned name of "God" are doing the same exact thing for the assigned name of "dark energy."

Not all of them...

 

[Unification]

A hypothetical can be a construct with no evidence at all and can not be tested in science. It is a thought experiment. However dark matter and energy are based on evidence, not direct, then inferred which makes it a hypothesis. Dark matter is a working hypothesis since it has been accepted on the basis of further research. The further research is about developing ways to detect it directly. There has been progress towards a few methods and tools of detection hence it is being tested, and has been tested for years. Some results show the detection method developed didn't work while other results are still being evaluated.



It is an accepted as a working hypothesis which assumes dark matter and dark energy as axiom. So as per "Any hypothesis will still not assume anything as true or fact." is factually incorrect.

Whether the tests result in anything direct or more inferences we just have to wait. I understand some people have claimed that dark matter and energy are fact. However I am not one of those people. I am merely pointing out that you are treating the hypothesis incorrectly to how it is viewed by those working on it.

The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated.

Perhaps we differ due to me focusing on the "testing" portion of a hypothesis.

As of now, dark energy cannot be directly tested or observed. Anything can "try" to be tested, but we will have to wait and see on the other evaluations.

I understand the axiom, due to there needing to be a cause for the accelerated expansion of the universe and with inferred observations and detections of distant objects moving further apart.

"It is an accepted as a working hypothesis which assumes dark matter and dark energy as axiom. So as per "Any hypothesis will still not assume anything as true or fact." is factually incorrect.

I understand that, and we are both correct here in different ways. It's more "if" and "then" with the hypothesis. . so I can understand having to "assume" something true(the if) to reach the "then" and how it will be viewed that way by those working on it. My lack of clarity as I was referring to the hypothesis "actually" being true and factual.

Thank you for your honesty and replies.

 

[prometheus11]

Unification, since everything you say about dark energy can also be said about gravity why aren't you all up in arms about us naming gravity?

My point has always been the same. We made measurements of matter moving that are consistent and ubiquitous and gave one set of measurements the name "gravity," and another set of measurements "dark energy."

Why the bias? Why is nobody getting riled up over gravity being only indirectly detectable?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

..dark energy....spiritual energy....

Yeah, it's all one man, right on! Roll another one!

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, it's all one man, right on! Roll another one!

Yes...actually the whole universe is one.....the underlying unity of the apparent diversity is energy....

 

[Shad]

The primary trait of a hypothesis is that something can be tested and that those tests can be replicated.

Yes. However for a working hypothesis which needs to develop a method and tools of said testing.

Perhaps we differ due to me focusing on the "testing" portion of a hypothesis.

No. You just didn't know that the "testing" is not always possible at the moment someone creates a hypothesis. Take the Big Bang theory. It was proposed but not confirmed until years later when Hubble developed tools to do so.

As of now, dark energy cannot be directly tested or observed. Anything can "try" to be tested, but we will have to wait and see on the other evaluations.

There have been a few direct testing methods and tools. If these are success is still being evaluated. This refutes your cannot since people are attempting to do just what you said they cannot do.

I understand the axiom, due to there needing to be a cause for the accelerated expansion of the universe and with inferred observations and detections of distant objects moving further apart.

I said the working hypothesis is treated as an axiom for research and testing purposes. This is different to treating dark matter itself as an axiom. Again it is the hypothesis which is treated as one only for testing purposes. This is far different from other axioms like self which only the insane would doubt. All hypothesis become treated as axioms for the purpose of falsification. Otherwise no one could falsify anything

I understand that, and we are both correct here in different ways.

Nope. You didn't know what a working hypothesis.

It's more "if" and "then" with the hypothesis. . so I can understand having to "assume" something true(the if) to reach the "then" and how it will be viewed that way by those working on it. My lack of clarity as I was referring to the hypothesis "actually" being true and factual.

If you understood this you would have said this many posts instead of saying "cannot detect"

Thank you for your honesty and replies.

From my pov both sides have been arguing the points badly. My argument applies to those that propose dark matter is fact as well. The tests are still being evaluated so everyone should wait before jumping on either bandwagon of "cannot" and "fact"

 

[Shad]

Unification, since everything you say about dark energy can also be said about gravity why aren't you all up in arms about us naming gravity?

My point has always been the same. We made measurements of matter moving that are consistent and ubiquitous and gave one set of measurements the name "gravity," and another set of measurements "dark energy."

Why the bias? Why is nobody getting riled up over gravity being only indirectly detectable?

The difference is that dark matter is in "object" while gravity is a force. The expectations are objects should be detectable directly rather just indirect and based on inference

 

[Unification]

Yes. However for a working hypothesis which needs to develop a method and tools of said testing.



No. You just didn't know that the "testing" is not always possible at the moment someone creates a hypothesis. Take the Big Bang theory. It was proposed but not confirmed until years later when Hubble developed tools to do so.



There have been a few direct testing methods and tools. If these are success is still being evaluated. This refutes your cannot since people are attempting to do just what you said they cannot do.



I said the working hypothesis is treated as an axiom for research and testing purposes. This is different to treating dark matter itself as an axiom. Again it is the hypothesis which is treated as one only for testing purposes. This is far different from other axioms like self which only the insane would doubt. All hypothesis become treated as axioms for the purpose of falsification. Otherwise no one could falsify anything



Nope. You didn't know what a working hypothesis.



If you understood this you would have said this many posts instead of saying "cannot detect"



From my pov both sides have been arguing the points badly. My argument applies to those that propose dark matter is fact as well. The tests are still being evaluated so everyone should wait before jumping on either bandwagon of "cannot" and "fact"

Please don't take my words and choose for me what I meant or tell me that I don't know.

"Any hypothesis is not assumed to be true or factual." I was talking about actuality, don't make it more than what it is and say "nope, you didn't know what a working hypothesis was." Still, any working hypothesis will not assume anything as actual truth or fact.

Also not true. Anything can "try" to be tested, even tinker fairies... Just because something is "attempted" to be tested doesn't mean it can be directly tested. Don't make the two the same thing.

"Cannot detect" is accurate. You can have faith in futuristic promises all that you want... nothing wrong with that. That's the bandwagon you chose. I choose what is current and present, nothing wrong with that either. As of now, it's a fact that it cannot.

Why do you claim it is a current fact that it can be tested and contradict yourself by saying that you're waiting?

 

[Unification]

The difference is that dark matter is in "object" while gravity is a force. The expectations are objects should be detectable directly rather just indirect and based on inference

You "believe" that gravity is a "force."

 

[Shad]

You "believe" that gravity is a "force."

No it is considered one of fundamental forces of the universe. Gravity is not a object.

 

[Unification]

No it is considered one of fundamental forces of the universe. Gravity is not a object.

It "is" a force or it is "considered" a force?

 

[Shad]

Please don't take my words and choose for me what I meant or tell me that I don't know.

I am just reading what you have posted which shows gaps in your knowledge of the subject.

"Any hypothesis is not assumed to be true or factual." I was talking about actuality, don't make it more than what it is and say "nope, you didn't know what a working hypothesis was." Still, any working hypothesis will not assume anything as actual truth or fact.

For it to be considered an axiom then it is assumed to be truth as that is the purpose of axioms.

Also not true. Anything can "try" to be tested, even tinker fairies... Just because something is "attempted" to be tested doesn't mean it can be directly tested. Don't make the two the same thing.

Actually some ideas can not be tested. The Big Bang theory was not confirmed right away. Lemaître's idea was not confirmed until 2 years later. It took almost 50 years for it to become mainstream and topple the steady state model due to an increasing amount of evidence for it.

"Cannot detect" is accurate. You can have faith in futuristic promises all that you want... nothing wrong with that.

It is not faith as there are actual tests and methods of detection being evaluated now in the present at CERN and using CRESST detectors

That's the bandwagon you chose. I choose what is current and present, nothing wrong with that either. As of now, it's a fact that it cannot.

I didn't pick a bandwagon as I treat dark matter as what it is, a working hypothesis. I am far more on your side than not. Your facts are based on ignorance as pointed out above with actual testing being conducted and evaluated.

Why do you claim it is a current fact that it can be tested and contradict yourself by saying that you're waiting?

No I said there are attempts at direct detection hence people are actually testing it which you claimed no one can do. I am waiting to see if the results have any merit.

 

[Shad]

It "is" a force or it is "considered" a force?

It is a force until falsified. Science can not provide absolutes. You either understand this or you don't.

 

[prometheus11]

The difference is that dark matter is in "object" while gravity is a force. The expectations are objects should be detectable directly rather just indirect and based on inference

Absolutely.

I have never once discussed dark MATTER.

I have only discussed dark ENERGY.

My point is that a person should not mock dark energy without being just as aghast at gravity. Neither are directly detected but both are surely measured by observations of the movements of matter-with-mass.

 

[prometheus11]

Shad, your post #1277 is amazingly insightful. Please understand my gratitude for your effort in this matter!!

 

[Shad]

Shad, your post #1277 is amazingly insightful. Please understand my gratitude for your effort in this matter!!

The dismissal of inference and reliance on direct observation as if it is the end all be all of science is a bit over the top. A lot of ideas can not be based on direct detection at all. Think about relativity for a moment. When we observe objects like our Sun or Jupiter we are observing the past. It takes about 8 minutes for light from the Sun to reach us. Thus we are never directly observing the Sun as we are just looking at it 8 minutes ago. The further an object is from us the greater the time lapse between what we observe and the source of what we observe increases. While we do have tool on board satellites to aid us these are very limited. Beyond our solar system we have no direct observation of anything directly. Even the doppler shift and Hubble's evidence for the Big Bang theory is based on observation of the past rather than direct observations. Another problem is people are treating direct observation as if it only means directly seeing something. However it also covers observation which do not effect the environment of what is being observed as to not contaminate the data. There is also the issue in which a tool records data. We are not observing the subject, we are observing the tool recording data and the data itself.