Quoting Haunted from 10:03, 29th Aug 2007Likewise, just because we can't see a god doesn't mean one does exist either.
No, you knew I meant 'see' literally. You don't to visually confirm something to it is there. We can infer its presence by the effect it has on its surroundings.
Ok. Assuming for a moment that there is a god, then the effects of a god should be observable, either directly or through implication (otherwise it becomes even more of an academic debate as to whether or not a god exists). We should be able to infer the presence of a god from our surroundings. That does not mean we presently have the knowledge or understanding to. If you imagine a short-sighted ant looking at the sole of your shoe, it can hardly have any idea that it is actually looking at something attached to a human being.
And hardly hiding. Not necessarily the beginning of the Universe, but outside the Universe. Thus, this hypothetical deity could still retain control over the Universe at whatever level it chooses to (or perhaps is capable of).
Yes hiding. He's beyond detection remember? And what does "outside the universe" mean exactly. It's just another way of saying "aha god is beyond this puny physical universe, sure we have no proof but we do have plenty of conflicting meaningless ideas".[/quote]
Presently outside our detection - I will make that qualifier.
By "outside the Universe", I mean outside what the four (or more) physical dimensions we occupy, thus outside what we conventionally call space and time.
I.e. in the same sort of realm that M-brane theory, etc., works in. This is a generally-accepted construct in which things can exist.
If you consider where to place a deity that traditionally has omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence (although there's no real reason to suppose any hypothetical god would), then this is the perfect place to put them: They are not confined to a given position. Assuming they can still act upon the Universe, they can probe into any point in N-dimensional space and time. What better place for them?
Most of what you described is anecdotal in that it is purely one persons personal event.
No, I'm talking about scientific studies, and statistical analyses of events that have witnesses, and predictions of future events that are told in detail exceeded expected random guessing over the statistical sample. Thus:
"the crystals spoke to me", "I saw jesus in the clouds", supposed miracles etc. Can it be tested? Yes, what do the test show? That it is pure fantasy.
The tests show that most of them are deluding themselves: people will see what they want to see. But there are a handful of events that stand up to scientific investigation. You'd be silly to offer it up as proof of a god, but nevertheless it is evidence. You can offer an explanation against it, and that explanation may be right, but it doesn't change the fact that it is evidence.
Well perhaps that's true, but this comes back down to a question of free will, which is a whole other can of worms.
No not quite yet. You say you can explain the universe with a god, I say I can explain the invention of the internet using a god. Surely the onus is on you to prove he didn't?
The onus is on both parties to prove that it can be done without invoking a god. That's the way it works - take an opposing theory and disprove it.
Since we've established proof is a relative concept, we can take the usual view in the scientific world that a theory is proved when there is negligible opposition to it from the investigating parties. In this case, the investigating parties include theologens, so the case is far from proved.
This appears to basically reiterate the paper's results: that the result is significant, though comes with the proviso that the study (like most studies) is imperfect. Was this for general interest, or did I miss a point you were making? I would look for other studies (I assure you they exist), but I'm a bit too busy at the moment.
But MOND doesn't involve anything other than the mass of the visible part of the galaxy. It's merely an introduction of a 1/r term (or similar) into F = GMm/r^2. There is no "dark matter mass" involved! Therefore a calculation of a mass is meaningless.
It is like measuring the inertial mass and the gravitational mass of an object. They are both the same but physically different. Strictly speaking MOND is a modifcation to Newton's second law, the consequences of which propagate through to gravitation. MOND has yet to decide whether it is a change to inertial or gravitational mass and so your measure quantity for DM mass could still turn out to be either the inertial mass of the galazy or it's gravitational mass. Also, if you've helped to establish a new theory you can hardly call you work meaningless.[/quote]
It has nothing to do with altering mass - gravitational or inertial. It has to do with modifying the effect of gravitational acceleration.
If I remember rightly, this stemmed from a discussion on scientific errors. It is not the measurement of the effect I was considering meaningless, it was the translation of that effect into an inferred mass, given that (if MOND is true) there is no mass involved. Thus, a figure of (3.615 +/- 0.003) x 10^12 solar masses of dark matter around your hypothetical galaxy is meaningless regardless of the size of the error you attribute to it, as you are really measuring something different, e.g. a0 = (1.205 +/- 0.001) x 10^-10 m s^-2.
An abstract idea (concept) can contain evil. Say your idea was "brutally blow up innocent bystanders"? Is the thought of doing it an evil thought? Then the idea of doing evil must be an evil idea. The bomb is not evil, but the idea of using it to do harm, is.
But is this relevant? Regardless of whether it is science, religion, loyalty, family, violence, oppression, or anything else: unscrupulous people in power will use any of these tools to bend the minds of otherwise "good" people into doing "bad" things.
Fusion is a well understood Earthly physics (we have been building the bombs for decades). GR was confirmed by Eddington back in 1919, and since then our instruments have advanced considerably. Other effects of GR have also been proved (on Earth) such as time dilation. The last one (planet formation and chemical evolution) is the most interesting. It has never been observed, indeed the process takes a very long time. What you can do is ask another question, "There's alot of heavy elements on Earth, what is capable of producing heavy elements?", "Hmm ok, how does that explain the water. Hmm comets are mostly water, there would have been alot of them in the early solar system". Etc. I'll admit though, the details are hardly set in stone.
The discovery of helium (the fusion product of hydrogen) came from solar observations, fusion production of heavier elements has only ever been observed in stars. Eddington used observations of the Sun during an eclipse to test GR (though his personal results are often called into question) and the most precise tests of GR come from observing astronomical phenomena (such as the recently-discovered double pulsar). Both fusion and GR are now more "exact" sciences. There is also the effects of high-energy solar radiation and micrometeorite impacts on satellites, related space weather, cosmic radiation (and its effects on Earth), low-pressure chemistry, etc., which all suffer from the large errors in most of astronomy.
Eventually that may be the outcome, but as a society (and one may argue scientifically) we are not yet ready to finalise ourselves to that conclusion.
You can never prove that there is no god. It won't be a scientific advance (though it should be) towards atheism, but a cultural one. Though lately we seem to be slipping back.[/quote]
Assuming things continue the way they are, and we do not have a divine revelation, it is likely to be both. I don't think we are "slipping back", it is merely coverage of a certain sect of people in the US. Ideas will adapt - albeit slowly - and truth will out (whatever it might be), though it may take some time.
That is irrelevant in the context of that point. Besides, the theological debate may also eventually be "solved".
No it's not irrevelvant. Can you disagree on the colour of the emporers shirt?
As far as I am aware, no theological issue had ever been 'solved'. One idea have never proven right over another (unless of course those ideas make physical predictions).[/quote]
Two points: first, the Emperor analogy is an observation of something which is seen not to exist. With religion, a god is not seen to exist: there is a difference. Secondly, if we consider your analogy, you make the presumption the Emperor has no shirt: say it was made of glass - you can see through it, but you would only see the glass if you caught its reflection and your eyesight was good enough and you knew what glass was.
Few theological debates have been solved (I don't know enough about theological history to say conclusively), but just because something hasn't been done, doesn't mean it won't be.
I still maintain that, like any other theory, those from different religious camps can disagree on the details of the "God model", yet still support the same theory.
If something is intelligent/powerful and created something as complex as the physical laws, then it itself must be complex.
Must it? Surely complexity arises out of an increase in entropy, therefore any creator of the Universe, which started with unity entropy (I believe), must therefore possess either zero or unity quanta of entropy.
Though, alternatively, if we are considering a body outside of space and time that created the Universe (which we presume has infinite entropy by the end of time, in the continually expanding universe we appear to live in), the body must have infinite or less energy to have 'caused' the universe - if indeed we can use such a term in a non-linear timeframe.
We cannot (presently) determine the cause of the Universe.
"God did it" is not an explanation, it is a cop out. It explains nothing, no how, no why, it just is. If people were a little bit more rational and understanding then pehaps we could blame them. I wonder if the chimps will ever start worshipping something, that should generate a few laughs.
Why is it any more of a cop-out than any other explanation? It offers a theory of how the Universe came into being: that's the 'how'; the 'why' is because God chose to make it. Can any other theory claim to give a reason for both of those? It is not terribly predictive, but neither is anything else we've come up with. Come up with a suggestion better than "God did it" and people might believe it.
On the subject of peoples' rationale, most (if not all) people lack the intellectual ability to consider the sum total of evidence in front of them, as everyone is neither fully versed in it, nor capable of understanding it. I wonder if, in an million years time, they'll be laughing at us for thinking the Universe is made of string?
An object or being existing outside the confines of our Universe is not subject to the temporal relations of it.
Thus, the object has neither a beginning, nor an end, and therefore does not require an origin. The same can be argued for any other mechanism which may bring the Universe into being.
This is still speculation. Though we are getting into the region where the brain starts to hurt. It is very difficult to concieve of
something that has always been or
nothing that never was. The universe may end up not needing a cause. If you want to hide a god, here is the best place to do it.[/quote]
Then we're agreed on your last point. Regardless of brain hurting, it's usually possible to make some sense of it if one thinks logically.
Why? Because you decree it is? It's a theory, like any other.
Complexity is not subjective. An omnipotent intelligence is more complex than a natural explanation.
See above.
If we neglect to invoke a god, we must come up with a natural explanation and none has yet been forthcoming.
God of the gaps. It is far better to just be honest and say "we don't know yet".
We don't. But that's never stopped people speculating. That's all religion is - a speculation. There are those who will consider themselves absolutely right, but as we've already concluded, they can't prove that. Most people, if they do so at all, will look at the available options (or at least those that they can understand and are exposed to) and will say "this looks the most viable option to me".
Something must have been operating outside the confines of conventional physics and spacetime to have created the Universe.
This you do not know. It is intuitive perhaps, but physics these days is hardly so.
I suppose you could be right here, although I'm struggling to think of a good reason not to have an outside cause.
I have no problem with people calling the hypothetical first cause, god. But do not then assign supernatural powers, divine will, worship, no meat of fridays all that other ridiculous baggage on to it.
A lot of people don't assign those things. God as merely a hypothetical first cause is a view held by a lot of people. And if one starts with this presumption, then it is not that big a leap to assume that this 'God' retains some control over the Universe and, if you ask him nicely, maybe he'll do something in your favour. The rest of the "baggage" can often be attributable to superstition, culture and tradition, if you wish to think of it that way.
You missed my point. Take a better physical law such as conservation of energy. This god is putting energy into this box that can be detected by the inhabitants. The conservation of energy inside the box is violated, as well as conservation of momentum and the second law of thermodynamics.
Show me an unaccountable source of energy that violates the conservation of energy in this universe and I'll say you've found something supernatural.
Why does any action have to require an input of energy? Plenty observed things don't require an exchange of energy: the fundamental forces act via mutual exchanges in energy; neutrinos appear to spontaneously change energy; particles spontaneously bubble into creation from nothingness, using energy from the vacuum; quantum mechanical tunnelling requires no change in energy. Besides, action can also happen from a sink of energy as well.
Systematic errors can of course be eliminated by proper calibration of instruments.
Only if you know that the calibration is incorrect. Besides, much experimentation is time-dependant, and relies on previous data, where incomplete records may belie errors which are continuously propagated, but I think we're losing the thread of the argument on this point.
[hr]
...then again, that is only my opinion.
...then again, that is only my opinion.
