Let's Present Some Evidence ...

[Runewolf1973]

They are essentially hypothetical placeholders used to account for variables which are necessary to make current cosmological models work. They don't actually describe known phenomenon, but rather observable effects of unknown phenomenon.

Thanks for that information. So therefore there is in existence some unknown phenomena that has observable effects. I wonder what that unknown phenomena might be? Not to say that it is anything supernatural, that's not what I believe anyways. But did I understand you correctly?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

no evidence? big surprise...

 

[Runewolf1973]

You know how they say nothing is ever perfect? What if before anything else ever came into being there existed absolute nothingness. However being that nothing is ever perfect, neither was this nothingness. Perhaps the universe started and energy came into being as a result of a simple "glitch" you might say...a flaw. One infinitesimally small spot of imperfection that clashed with the rest of what was otherwise perfect nothingness. Out of that appeared the first movement. Was that a ridiculous thought or what? I honestly don't know how I come up with these things.

 

[nonbeliever_92]

You know how they say nothing is ever perfect? What if before anything else ever came into being there existed absolute nothingness. However being that nothing is ever perfect, neither was this nothingness. Perhaps the universe started and energy came into being as a result of a simple "glitch" you might say...a flaw. One infinitesimally small spot of imperfection that clashed with the rest of what was otherwise perfect nothingness. Out of that appeared the first movement. Was that a ridiculous thought or what? I honestly don't know how I come up with these things.

idk, i don't think that matters all too much.

 

[PureX]

You know how they say nothing is ever perfect? What if before anything else ever came into being there existed absolute nothingness. However being that nothing is ever perfect, neither was this nothingness. Perhaps the universe started and energy came into being as a result of a simple "glitch" you might say...a flaw. One infinitesimally small spot of imperfection that clashed with the rest of what was otherwise perfect nothingness. Out of that appeared the first movement. Was that a ridiculous thought or what? I honestly don't know how I come up with these things.

In one of my favorite novels (The Brothers Karamozov, by Fyoder Dostoyevsky) there is a long conversation between one of the brothers, and satan. The brother presumes that he's hallucinating, but can't seem to stop it or make it go away, so he converses, anyway. In this conversation, satan explains that he has nothing against god or man, and that in fact he's long since grown weary of being the one and only antagonist in god's eternal story, and that he'd love nothing more than to "retire" and spend the rest of his own eternity singing god's praises along with all the other angels. But he knows that the moment he surrenders to god, the whole "thing" is over. The material world will cease to exist. Mankind will cease to exist. Only heaven will be left, and the sound of one big "hosanna", forever. And satan just can't bear to see it all end on his account.

Perfection, I would imagine, must be terribly boring. As would be omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. If I were God, the one thing I would long for above all others, is a flaw.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Yes, assembly is a type of creation, but that kind of creation is not what Abrahamic 'creatio ex nihilo' doctrine is about.

I believe this to be initially Greek rather than 'Abrahamic'.

 

[Bware]

In one of my favorite novels (The Brothers Karamozov, by Fyoder Dostoyevsky) there is a long conversation between one of the brothers, and satan. The brother presumes that he's hallucinating, but can't seem to stop it or make it go away, so he converses, anyway. In this conversation, satan explains that he has nothing against god or man, and that in fact he's long since grown weary of being the one and only antagonist in god's eternal story, and that he'd love nothing more than to "retire" and spend the rest of his own eternity singing god's praises along with all the other angels. But he knows that the moment he surrenders to god, the whole "thing" is over. The material world will cease to exist. Mankind will cease to exist. Only heaven will be left, and the sound of one big "hosanna", forever. And satan just can't bear to see it all end on his account.

Perfection, I would imagine, must be terribly boring. As would be omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. If I were God, the one thing I would long for above all others, is a flaw.

This is a very interesting concept. I might have to check out this book.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

This is a very interesting concept. I might have to check out this book.

"Check out this book?"

Please don't tell me you have never heard of The Grand Inquisitor scene!

The Brothers K is one of great classic novels in world literature. It has been read and discussed in every serious lit class since it was published. It has been re-done on stage, screen, TV and the ideas copied in one way or another in just about every popular philosophical work. Even SciFi, Deep Space9 and BattleStar Galatica.

Seriously, one cannot claim to be well read and have no knowledge of it.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Seriously, one cannot claim to be well read and have no knowledge of it.

Pretentious rubbish.

 

[Copernicus]

I believe this to be initially Greek rather than 'Abrahamic'.

By 'Abrahamic', I meant it to describe what all three major Abrahamic religions currently assert as doctrine. The originator of the idea was apparently Philo of Alexandria, a Hellenised Jew. Philo associated it with the Genesis account of creation. This initiated the classical debate that eventually received the Latin label creatio ex nihilo. Christians and Jews were known to take this position in the philosophical debate.

 

[Copernicus]

Thanks for that information. So therefore there is in existence some unknown phenomena that has observable effects. I wonder what that unknown phenomena might be? Not to say that it is anything supernatural, that's not what I believe anyways. But did I understand you correctly?

Runewolf, you might enjoy reading Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams' The View from the Center of the Universe. Primack is a physicist who has done some of the original work on dark matter and dark energy. The book is devoted to explaining how cosmology has changed since ancient times and what kind of sense one could make of spirituality in the context of modern cosmology. He has some good non-technical descriptions of the insights that led to belief in dark matter and dark energy. For example, the manner in which galaxies rotate does not make sense unless one sees them as embedded in some kind of medium, which translates into the metaphorical "dark matter".

 

[Runewolf1973]

Runewolf, you might enjoy reading Joel Primack and Nancy Abrams' The View from the Center of the Universe. Primack is a physicist who has done some of the original work on dark matter and dark energy. The book is devoted to explaining how cosmology has changed since ancient times and what kind of sense one could make of spirituality in the context of modern cosmology. He has some good non-technical descriptions of the insights that led to belief in dark matter and dark energy. For example, the manner in which galaxies rotate does not make sense unless one sees them as embedded in some kind of medium, which translates into the metaphorical "dark matter".

Thanks! That sounds interesting.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

Pretentious rubbish.

Jay, I thought I was on your ignore list.:sad:

I'm NOT? Please say it ain't so, Jay.

 

[PureX]

This is a very interesting concept. I might have to check out this book.

It's a long but very thought-provoking and entertaining story. I suspect you might enjoy it. It's a classic.

 

[OmarKhayyam]

It's a long but very thought-provoking and entertaining story. I suspect you might enjoy it. It's a classic.

No that statement is pretentious rubbish. We have Jay's word for it.

What more could we need?

 

[Beaudreaux]

I tried that until it became apparent to me that nothing I presented would be accepted as evidence, because the other person/s have already made up their mind that there is none. At that point the conversation is at an impasse.

Perhaps our disagreement over what is evidence and what is not should be addressed more directly. By that I mean that instead of presenting a phenomenon and claiming that it is evidence, maybe we should take a step back and define what evidence is.

I favor applying John Stuart Mill's 5 methods of experimental reasoning:

• The method of agreement
• The method of difference
• The method of agreement and difference
• The method of residues
• The method of concommitant variation

I would like to apply these methods to your pieces of evidence to see if they meet the criteria, but first I would like to know if we can agree that "evidence" is physically observable phenomena that pass one or more of these 5 methods of analysis. Can we? Do you favor a different definition of evidence?

 

[nonbeliever_92]

In one of my favorite novels (The Brothers Karamozov, by Fyoder Dostoyevsky) there is a long conversation between one of the brothers, and satan. The brother presumes that he's hallucinating, but can't seem to stop it or make it go away, so he converses, anyway. In this conversation, satan explains that he has nothing against god or man, and that in fact he's long since grown weary of being the one and only antagonist in god's eternal story, and that he'd love nothing more than to "retire" and spend the rest of his own eternity singing god's praises along with all the other angels. But he knows that the moment he surrenders to god, the whole "thing" is over. The material world will cease to exist. Mankind will cease to exist. Only heaven will be left, and the sound of one big "hosanna", forever. And satan just can't bear to see it all end on his account.

Perfection, I would imagine, must be terribly boring. As would be omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence. If I were God, the one thing I would long for above all others, is a flaw.

Not existing is quite an enormous flaw.

 

[PureX]

Perhaps our disagreement over what is evidence and what is not should be addressed more directly. By that I mean that instead of presenting a phenomenon and claiming that it is evidence, maybe we should take a step back and define what evidence is.

I favor applying John Stuart Mill's 5 methods of experimental reasoning:

• The method of agreement
• The method of difference
• The method of agreement and difference
• The method of residues
• The method of concommitant variation

I would like to apply these methods to your pieces of evidence to see if they meet the criteria, but first I would like to know if we can agree that "evidence" is physically observable phenomena that pass one or more of these 5 methods of analysis. Can we? Do you favor a different definition of evidence?

First, I haven't got a clue what any of those "methods" mean. And second, I do not agree that evidence is physically observable phenomena.

The fact that Bob could have slipped away from his job unnoticed, killed his wife, and returned to work, is certainly evidence in support of the theory that Bob killed his wife. But by definition it would not have been a physically observed phenomena.

Evidence is a fact or collection of facts that support a theory. Facts are not always physical. Facts are not always observed. Facts are not phenomena. Facts are bits of information that can be proven "true" relative to each other.

 

[McBell]

First, I haven't got a clue what any of those "methods" mean. And second, I do not agree that evidence is physically observable phenomena.

The fact that Bob could have slipped away from his job unnoticed, killed his wife, and returned to work, is certainly evidence in support of the theory that Bob killed his wife. But by definition it would not have been a physically observed phenomena.

Evidence is a fact or collection of facts that support a theory. Facts are not always physical. Facts are not always observed. Facts are not phenomena. Facts are bits of information that can be proven "true" relative to each other.

Mill's Methods - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Beaudreaux]

First, I haven't got a clue what any of those "methods" mean. And second, I do not agree that evidence is physically observable phenomena.

The fact that Bob could have slipped away from his job unnoticed, killed his wife, and returned to work, is certainly evidence in support of the theory that Bob killed his wife. But by definition it would not have been a physically observed phenomena.

Evidence is a fact or collection of facts that support a theory. Facts are not always physical. Facts are not always observed. Facts are not phenomena. Facts are bits of information that can be proven "true" relative to each other.

OK, first of all, possibility is not evidence. Possible and probable are not related. Secondly, there are no non-observable facts. Break it down and you will see. How do you determine that it was possible for Bob to kill his wife. Because you have physical evidence of where he was, what transportation was available to him, etc.