Faith and belief are not the same thing. Faith is a subset of belief, a kind of belief that one holds without any reason to. This usually happens when one's beliefs, or what one is supposed to believe, is at odds with his own experience. This is why faith is important to religion. Faith is permission to believe things you have no right to believe. This is not a good example. Too vague. First, evolution does not necessarily imply all life has a single common ancestor, so the premise is false. The reason the prevailing theory is shifted around when contradictory evidence arises is because evolution is such a stongly evidenced theory that a small contradiction is not necessarily enough to unseat it. To make people discard evolution, which any good science would be happy to do, requires a theory stronger than evolution, which is already VERY strong. Quite so. But if most of the points you tried to make in this post are any sign, you are not currently equipped to handle the REAL questions.
"ology" = the study of... Theology Cosmology Certainly not! Many of the best have been or are believers! As is God, if you are willing to allow the same sort of inferencing. Why is it okay to infer this unknown "placeholder" thingy called "dark matter" but God is ridiculous--compared to fairies and Santa Claus? What is gravity? Where is it--I mean, where is the empirical material evidence of the thing "gravity." You can't point to it; you can't weigh it--how can you claim gravity exists but that God does not? There is empirical evidence for God--there is all kinds of evidence--but just as empirical evidence doesn't PROVE scientific "facts", neither will it PROVE God.
The going theory of gravity is that the Higgs Boson is responsible for the properties of gravity. However the incoherence of Newtonian and Einsteinian physics makes pinning down the exact properties of gravity a bit difficult. Dark matter cannot be visually verified due to its sparseness and lack of interaction with normal matter. However its gravitational influences can be measured on the galactic scale. Galaxies spin too quickly to be held together with visible matter alone, clusters of galaxies are held together too tightly to be held together with visible matter alone. So no, dark matter is not one these things that has absolutely no evidence to suggest its existence you claim. I see where you are going with this, and no it is not a valid argument. Science may not have the answers at this very moment, however, that does not make religion a valid alternative of any sort.
No, there is not empirical evidence for god, and the absence of a certain definition for the nature of gravity is not proof for god. You are using god of the gaps, a fallacy.
That's not MY faith. Are you a believer in God? If not, how can you claim to know what faith is? Agian--I suspect you are a non-believer defining an experience you have no experience with. General Relativity does not jibe with Quantum Physics. Is that specific enough? No--the theory leaves that unanswerred because it is inconvenient to have to deal with it. So---where did life in such diversity begin? Sounds like an excuse to me. Oh? Your superior intellect can discern that from one little post?
Oh darn! But--no matter....la, dee, da, dee, dah.... So it's a thing that is there, but we can't see it, and the way we know it's there is that this other thing that we don't know what it is (gravity) shows us that it must exist. Sorta sounds like the theist who says God is real because the Bible says so and i know th Bible is true because it is the word of God. Oh...so you're gonna take your ball and go home. 'Kay.
:/ Do you by any chance know why the nature of gravity is difficult to pin down? I am looking for a sentence or two, the idea is complex, however the explanation can be very simple. What does Einstein's theory apply to? Why is it more accurate than Newton's theory? Where does Quantum mechanics come into the picture regarding the nature of gravity? Actually, no its not. Instead of using a book written 2,000 years ago, in a time that the world was flat and in the center of the universe, a time if which slavery, rape, murder, and genocide were acceptable, modern scientists use theory and instruments to measure the universe we live in. Instead of looking at a vague passage and doing their best to pull a meaning out they look at a galaxy, realize its spinning a bit too fast for its own mass, and derive conclusions from that. Also we can see dark matter, however not directly. Through gravitational lensing it it visible. Just pointing out your entire argument is a fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
Oh and don't make the mistake of imagining that atheists don't understand faith because they dont have it. Some of them did, but lost it. (That's going to bite me, semantically isn't it? *sigh*)
Are you asking for a science lesson? Huh? Theology does not refer to the Bible as a science manual. :rolls And likewise, God can be seen--though not directly. That is a convenient made up fallacy--one that "sounds good", but if you actually understand the term, it is no "fallacy" at all--it is predicated upon the assumption that science and God are exclusive, which is a straw man fallacy. There is no such thing in legitimate logic lexicon called "God of the Gaps"--the closest thing is argument from ignorance, but that is not at all what is going on here.
I just want to see if you know what you are talking about. I will ask again; Why is it difficult to describe gravity with either Einsteinian or Quantum gravity? . Um...no. I am well aware of the argument from ignorance, however I choose to use god of the gaps so that it would be more specific. As for an argument from ignorance, that is exactly what is happening here. You are saying that because science cannot answer X, then god is just as viable of a theory. It is not. The limitations of science are only limitations for the time. Five years ago a 14TeV collider was a bit out of reach, not so much anymore. There are answers to be had today that were not available five years ago.
Do you have a specific answer fixed in your head that you are looking for? Is it "curved vs. flat?" Why--because you say so? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance#Argument_from_incredulity.2FLack_of_imagination Apparently you are because your incredulity demonstrates it. How so? One who subscribes to the Christian view of theology can answer the same way--it is only a matter of time and the reality of God will become apparent through revelation. How is your claim that "we will know in time" any different than a Christian's claim "we will know in time?" HINT: It isn't.
This is the third time I am asking, I am on the verge of assuming you have no idea. Just answer the question. :/ The two are very different. Your argument rests on the use of a 2,000 year old book to somehow predict the increased acceptance of the text in the future. How does that progression work? My argument relies on the demonstrable progression of science and sciences tools for discovering what is true and correct. It is fair to say that in the future science will have more to offer than this moment. Your argument has failed by the use of dark matter, is there something else you want to cite?
I have no idea of the specific answer you are looking for--that is true. However, as I suggested, General Relativity is a theory of gravity that posits space/time are on a curve in response to matter, and therefore measurement is "relative." Whereas, quantum theory operates on the flat space/time of special relativity. It's like talking apples and trying to explain oranges. But--who knows what answer YOU have configured in your head that would satisfy this silly "test" of yours. And what exactly does this have to do with God and the rational belief in God? Actually, a large portion of "the book" is a tad older than 2000 years and some of it is a bit younger than that. And it is again a straw man to suggest that "the book" is the impetus of faith--that is not at all the case. What exactly is your "argument?" You have simply stated we "will know" with science and dismiss theological perspectives. That's not an argument--that 's a statement of opinion. How so? What is the material evidence of dark matter--or dark energy? Hmmmm? There is none--it's all conjecture based on observations and attempting to reconcile those observations with what is the prevailing theory.
Its not a silly test. Its a question that has been asked three times concerning the reason for the difficulty in describing gravity with Einsteinian and quantum physics. You said that science has no idea what gravity is, and apparently you have no idea why that is the case. Without the book there is no Christianity. My argument is a counter to yours, with growing scientific knowledge the need for some to use a higher power to explain the unknown is less and less prevalent. God of the gaps tends to disappear as the gaps become and then non-existent. I have already explained twice. Are you aware of what gravitational lensing is? Or perhaps accelerated expansion? The proof for the existence of dark energy and matter is there, the only mystery that remains is the exact nature of the dark matter and the properties of the dark energy. I suggest you research both topics before stating there is no proof for either.
Enlighten me, then. :rolls That is such an ignorant statement. "The book" did not come first. As I said--that is based upon the supposition that somehow science is in opposition to God. I believe science elucidates the reality of God. S sure--this non-existent "God of the Gaps" DOES disappear as we learn more about the universe, but the real God of all creation becomes ever clearer. What is gravity? Point to it, sir. Admit it--you don't know what it is, you just see how it behaves and by inference develop ideas about it. Gravity seems to be a thing not there, but nonetheless, it is there and it's obvious. You don't believe in God? You might as well deny the existence of gravity.
I can see the effects of gravity, and I can calculate with astonishing precision what effects it will have. Where is the the similar observation and predictive power of deities? If I do x, will a deity always do y? Where is the mechanism of deities? I can give you one for gravity, (Higgs boson), but I doubt you can point to one that can be experimentally confirmed, for a deity. Oh btw which deity are we talking about? Most of them are mutually exclusive, leaving not just one hypothesis requiring experimentation and calculation. If you can narrow it down a bit we may be able to find a falsification criteria, bringing the idea closer to one which is testable.
Higgs boson? Really? That's hypothetical too! It's made up to "fix" inconsistencies! If you accept Higgs boson, obviously you must believe in the mechanism of prayer as an agent of God's action! You guys are funny.
Most of the religionists on this forum are militant. They have no interest in debate, just in attacking and insulting the atheists on this forum. look at this thread as an example. what is its purpose?
Well--at this point, we're discussing faith in the Higgs boson and worshipping at the altar of the Hadron Collider!
You appear to know absolutely nothing about the Higgs boson to describe it as such. Care to take a stab at answering the rest?
