Is God's existence necessary?

[prometheus11]

Right on. That's been my thrust this entire time.

One of my previous examples was the orbit of Pluto; we will never directly observe Pluto orbit the sun, but it would be preposterous to assert that it does not orbit the sun due to our other observations of the other planets and our understanding of physics and planetary movements.

 

[Unification]

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



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



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.



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



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.



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.

Well, I never asked the goal posts to be widened by bringing "axioms" into the matter.

"Hypotheses are not assumed actual fact or truth."

CERN and CRESST detectors are for dark MATTER, not dark energy.

It just goes to show that you've been talking about dark MATTER this entire time rather than dark ENERGY.

I am saying that dark ENERGY cannot be tested, while you're trying to call out ignorance by showing tests being performed with dark MATTER. That doesn't work.

 

[Unification]

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.

I am not mocking dark energy, gravity, nor have problems with the words.

I am against and reasoning how you are portraying them and lying about them and how you mock others for the very same thing you do without self realization/awareness of it.

 

[Unification]

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

I can use your same exact logic...

Scientists use absolutes all of the time during their hypotheses axioms. Absolutes in "actuality" are different than "assumed" absolutes.

It is believed and thought to be a force until falsified. Who holds this monopoly? It is divided amongst physicists who believe and think of gravity as not a force.

 

[Unification]

Right on. That's been my thrust this entire time.

One of my previous examples was the orbit of Pluto; we will never directly observe Pluto orbit the sun, but it would be preposterous to assert that it does not orbit the sun due to our other observations of the other planets and our understanding of physics and planetary movements.

No, it hasn't.

Applying what Shad said above... "dark energy" is the cause for the expansion of the universe. ... which is your "belief." It is not the end all.

Galaxies that distant, there are hypotheses that don't need dark energy as a cause and centralize on time dilation and tweeks with gravity. In other words, what is observed and measured as to what appears to be very distant galaxies separating further apart.. hypothetically may/can be a misperception of time, time dilation, and gravity.

There are also hypotheses that it's not even dark energy, it is dark fluid. Like your inhale and exhale... expansion and retract.

There are so many differing axioms and hypotheses as to what is the "cause" and some believe the universe isn't even expanding at accelerating speeds.

 

[Unification]

Right on. That's been my thrust this entire time.

One of my previous examples was the orbit of Pluto; we will never directly observe Pluto orbit the sun, but it would be preposterous to assert that it does not orbit the sun due to our other observations of the other planets and our understanding of physics and planetary movements.

That can be ripped to pieces when referring to distant galaxies and applying the same logic to dark energy.

 

[prometheus11]

I am not mocking dark energy, gravity, nor have problems with the words.

I am against and reasoning how you are portraying them and lying about them and how you mock others for the very same thing you do without self realization/awareness of it.

I have mocked no one. Please apologize for that false accusation.

I have not lied about dark energy or anything that I know of on this thread. Please apologize for that false accusation.

I am simply attempting to correct poor understanding. I am not emotionally invested in what science states, but I do correct misconceptions when I notice them.

Please apologize for your slander against me.

 

[prometheus11]

No, it hasn't.

Applying what Shad said above... "dark energy" is the cause for the expansion of the universe. ... which is your "belief." It is not the end all.

Galaxies that distant, there are hypotheses that don't need dark energy as a cause and centralize on time dilation and tweeks with gravity. In other words, what is observed and measured as to what appears to be very distant galaxies separating further apart.. hypothetically may/can be a misperception of time, time dilation, and gravity.

There are also hypotheses that it's not even dark energy, it is dark fluid. Like your inhale and exhale... expansion and retract.

There are so many differing axioms and hypotheses as to what is the "cause" and some believe the universe isn't even expanding at accelerating speeds.

It's a phenomenon that is measured by observation of moving matter. Because the exact mechanism is not yet understood, science has named it "dark energy," regardless of if it is fairy farts or more accurately analogous with a "fluid."

 

[prometheus11]

That can be ripped to pieces when referring to distant galaxies and applying the same logic to dark energy.

What? What is the noun you are referring to with the pronoun "that?"

 

[prometheus11]

Uni, you can express the same exact ideas without being a jerk.

I have that faith.

Try it.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Right on. That's been my thrust this entire time.

One of my previous examples was the orbit of Pluto; we will never directly observe Pluto orbit the sun, but it would be preposterous to assert that it does not orbit the sun due to our other observations of the other planets and our understanding of physics and planetary movements.

Nonsense.....Pluto can be observed directly via telescopes and the orbit thus is scientifically verified...this completely different from doing red shift and CMBR measurements that are the interpreted to support the theory that the universe started with the big bang...

Before you start on your offensive....if you really want anyone to take big bang theory seriously...you need to address the claim that the universe had a beginning. My question to you is...what was the cause of the big bang...I mean the scientific reason given as you understand it?

 

[prometheus11]

Nonsense.....Pluto can be observed directly via telescopes and the orbit thus is scientifically verified...this completely different from doing red shift and CMBR measurements that are the interpreted to support the theory that the universe started with the big bang...

Before you start on your offensive....if you really want anyone to take big bang theory seriously...you need to address the claim that the universe had a beginning. My question to you is...what was the cause of the big bang...I mean the scientific reason given as you understand it?

I don't care if anyone takes the Big Bang seriously. Science is honest and admits that it doesn't know what caused the Big Bang since science can only measure what is inside this universe.

Neither I nor science claims that the universe "had a beginning." Science merely asserts that a hot, dense point inflated and expanded.

Pluto takes almost a thousand years to orbit the sun. We have only known about Pluto less than a hundred years. We INFER that it must orbit the sun based on our observations of other planet's orbits and the few degrees of arc we have seen in Pluto's trajectory. There's no solid, direct evidence that Pluto orbits the sun like there are for the innermost planets that we have directly observed orbiting the sun many times.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I don't care if anyone takes the Big Bang seriously. Science is honest and admits that it doesn't know what caused the Big Bang since science can only measure what is inside this universe.

Neither I nor science claims that the universe "had a beginning." Science merely asserts that a hot, dense point inflated and expanded.

Pluto takes almost a thousand years to orbit the sun. We have only known about Pluto less than a hundred years. We INFER that it must orbit the sun based on our observations of other planet's orbits and the few degrees of arc we have seen in Pluto's trajectory. There's no solid, direct evidence that Pluto orbits the sun like there are for the innermost planets that we have directly observed orbiting the sun many times.

So science admits it does not know whether the universe had a beginning....and then goes on create a theory that it did....talk about cognitive dissonance?

Steady state theory otoh involves no such contradiction.....nothing can come from nothing... somethings exists...therefore it has always existed...

 

[prometheus11]

So science admits it does not know whether the universe had a beginning....and then goes on create a theory that it did....talk about cognitive dissonance?

Steady state theory otoh involves no such contradiction.....nothing can come from nothing... somethings exists...therefore it has always existed...

No.

Science does not say that the universe began.

Science says that at one time the entire universe was a hot dense point that then expanded quickly.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No.

Science does not say that the universe began.

Science says that at one time the entire universe was a hot dense point that then expanded quickly.

Yes..we know big bang science says that....but what does science say caused the hot dense point? I mean this hot dense point could not have appeared without a cause...science so far as I understand it does not consider causeless effects a part of the scientific method as such claims are not falsifiable..yes?

 

[Unification]

I have mocked no one. Please apologize for that false accusation.

I have not lied about dark energy or anything that I know of on this thread. Please apologize for that false accusation.

I am simply attempting to correct poor understanding. I am not emotionally invested in what science states, but I do correct misconceptions when I notice them.

Please apologize for your slander against me.

It would be wiser to correct your own misconceptions first before attempting to correct others.

First, it takes self awareness/recognition of ones own misconceptions. This is tough to do, swallowing pride. It's okay to be wrong, we all have our imperfect/infallible human nature too.
For the things you're not aware of/know of... I forgive you. . and I hope that you will one day realize what I was trying to do in an overly rational and pestful way.

I have much respect for you, pal. . and anyone with humbleness and humility enough to admit human error is wiser than one who will not. If you've perceived that I've offended you or slandered you, I do genuinely apologize.

Let's carry on and not judge others for their beliefs in things that cannot be measured or tested.

 

[Unification]

What? What is the noun you are referring to with the pronoun "that?"

Your Pluto analogy.

 

[Unification]

Uni, you can express the same exact ideas without being a jerk.

I have that faith.

Try it.

Let's move beyond the judgements of others and their beliefs in things that cannot be tested, or measured.

Ideas, yes ideas ideas. So what is your personal idea, beliefs/speculation on what "dark energy" is?

 

[prometheus11]

It would be wiser to correct your own misconceptions first before attempting to correct others.

First, it takes self awareness/recognition of ones own misconceptions. This is tough to do, swallowing pride. It's okay to be wrong, we all have our imperfect/infallible human nature too.
For the things you're not aware of/know of... I forgive you. . and I hope that you will one day realize what I was trying to do in an overly rational and pestful way.

I have much respect for you, pal. . and anyone with humbleness and humility enough to admit human error is wiser than one who will not. If you've perceived that I've offended you or slandered you, I do genuinely apologize.

Let's carry on and not judge others for their beliefs in things that cannot be measured or tested.

I am not aware of any misconceptions I have.

You lied about what I had said and intended. That's fact, not perception.

I have done nothing to you for which you should "forgive me." Stop pretending as if I have wronged you because I am calling you out on lying about me. That's immature and unfair and dishonest.

I have never judged anyone for beliefs concerning immeasurable things. I merely point out the difference.

 

[prometheus11]

Your Pluto analogy.

That makes no sense in conjunction with what you said. Replace the pronoun with " Pluto" and you'll understand.