I think it's obvious I know more about it than you do--You seem to think there is some evidence other than hypothetical speculation of this mysterious entity--there's not. And what--you want to shift focus off from your faith and place mine on the chopping block? Mine is a religion, and I don't claim it to be anything other than that.
and often people who have no clue of each, will identify themselves with ignorant claims. most everyone knows better yes it is that is like ranting god made it. Them last two statements you made are blantantly ignornance based and another the original 'dark matter' idea is just 'matter that is not within stars'; emitting light...... (ie.... the earths, the van allen belt, jupiter, the asteroid belts...etc.....) Stars are made of the unlit matter, initially (ie.... dark matter being like nebula without em running thru it) But there aint 78% of new crap (dark energy/matter) in the universe. There are no black holes from collapsing gravitational fields and utttter matter in universes in uttttttttttter dimensions going thru the wormholes.... These claims are sustained by people that really dont know how, where and what causes 'their' creations. It is just like the fools for hold onto the gods as being uttttttter dudes on throwns. Can you see the similarities of the idiocracies? Beliefs in BS that is simply misunderstood.
No--the collider is an altar. Look how much money has been thrown at this thing with next to no results in the HOPE of proving the existence of what actually IS your god--human intellect. Your ilk thinks that if you can somehow contain the mysteries of the universe in a neat little package, it will confirm your superiority over that universe and all that is in it so that you are "Gods of knowing." As if even if there is such a thing as the Higgs boson, that would have anything at all to do with mankind's greatness or somehow explain why all there is in existence ...is.
Sure--I'm all for learning all we can about the universe. It will not make us gods, however, nor will it explain why the universe is.
as much as i hate to side with a religious wingnut.................. i have to. science has just as much bs of beliefs as religions and the people within are often worse as far as rude and cruelty. revelation is a 'revealing' and i will agree, as the unveiling occurs, which is happening right now in front of you (guess who), the understanding (let him who hath understanding) can and will enable the new beginning of mankind Meaning; just as newton (galileo/copernicus) opened up the paradigm shift, so did christianity to the abrhamic sects. The last (unveiling) will be what you are reading NOW. And it will be based on the 'light' (em, electromagnetism), just as the old prophecies claimed. ie.... the key of life (as the ankh was used as a symbol) just the old timers (egyptians) said. The cross (em/light) the loop, time. And as E=mc2 shared; Energy is just mass affixed in time. (fission provides the evidence; split an atom and light (em) is the energy released) By bringing the 2 disciplines together, (actually the three) the truth unveils. mankind is 'born again' (aware of itself)
Hypothetical speculation? Really? Wow. I have no faith. If you make a claim that a deity interferes in the world, you are making a claim that can be tested. If you say that it doesn't interfere with the universe in any detectable or testable way, then why even postulate it's existence? Science is not a faith, scientism is not an accurate description of atheism, and religious claims avoid testability not because they are above it, but because they fail.
that is what dark BS is. Sure you do, we all do. i know i have faith mankind will understand. I have faith mankind is capable! Well now use that with dark matter, black holes, utttttttttter dimensions. Same argument can be applied!!!!!! point taken but you have to be fair and check both disciplines to hold yourself to the same integrity of THAT argument. i mean, we both know there aint a dude on a thrown with lightning bolts in his hand. But also realize, each paradigm of science also evolved into another, just the same! be fair with yourself and then you will see the capacity of errors in any 'belief system' no matter the discipline.
I suggest you choose a different topic to argue. The issue is with the two pillars of physics, Einsteinian physics (We will just include Newtonian physics in the Eainsteinian pillar, due to the similarity between the two, but the greater accuracy of Einsteinian physics prevails), and quantum physics. The two work great alone, in their two specialized fields. Einsteinian works for the massive, quantum works for the small. The issue arises in situations were the two must be combined. For instance, singularities. Using the two gravity cannot be accurately described on the smallest of scales. The combination of the two pillars fall apart and result in infinities. Which is non-sense, something cannot happen more than always. My argument is that the creation of the universe, or the nature of gravity, is not forever out of the reach of science. The problem is answerable, the only issue is how such a question can be answered through science. The belief that science will arrive at such conclusions is not akin to religion. Um..... no. The nature and physics become clearer and point towards a deity free universe of which the working of such a universe can be explained without invoking a deity to explain X. Gravity is the curvature of spacetime. We all know what gravity is, the exact nature is the mystery being that we have not yet discovered the particle responsible for the properties of gravity. However, that is what the LHC is for. God =/= gravity. The two are separate.
Just read the last two pages, all I can say is wow. I guess an absence of knowledge is the same as believing in a sky fairy judging your thoughts and actions.
Why? It's uncomfortable for you to face the fact that you walk by faith? It's natural to the human experience. Just embrace it. And...what makes these paradigms of belief worthy of the slavish devotion you show? They do not work together. They are not reconciled. You do NOT have an answer, not proof, nor even any evidence but HOPE that the theories can be reconciled. Uhhh...yes...how does this bolster your point? It seems rather to agree with mine. Are you learning as you go? Exactly how is it different? In what way? How does scientific discovery lessen the plausibility of a deity? It is a false dichotomy. Just because you watch "How it's Made" on the Science Channel--just because you see the tools used and understand the method of construction--that never eliminates the origination of the idea, nor eliminates the creator. Knowing ABOUT is not CAUSING to be, nor does it mean that the product created simply appeared from nothingness. When are services at the Collider? Perhaps I'd like to observe the ritual of the worship as a sort of anthropological study.
Why? It's uncomfortable for you to face the fact that you walk by faith? It's natural to the human experience. Just embrace it. And...what makes these paradigms of belief worthy of the slavish devotion you show? They do not work together. They are not reconciled. You do NOT have an answer, not proof, nor even any evidence but HOPE that the theories can be reconciled. Uhhh...yes...how does this bolster your point? It seems rather to agree with mine. Are you learning as you go? Exactly how is it different? In what way? How does scientific discovery lessen the plausibility of a deity? It is a false dichotomy. Just because you watch "How it's Made" on the Science Channel--just because you see the tools used and understand the method of construction--that never eliminates the origination of the idea, nor eliminates the creator. Knowing ABOUT is not CAUSING to be, nor does it mean that the product created simply appeared from nothingness. When are services at the Collider? Perhaps I'd like to observe the ritual of the worship as a sort of anthropological study.
No, it is simply amusing to watch someone who has obviously missed the flood of books concerning theoretical physics argue as if the use of such physics is akin to religion. There is very little hope required. We live in a world that is governed by particular laws of physics. The meshing of the two pillars is a matter of devising a mathematical principle that will allow the two to play together. String theory is on the leading edge of such a pursuit. One is based on reality and the other a series of myths derived from desert nomads. In what way? With the advancement of knowledge the need to invoke the supernatural is less and less. Its just a matter of progress. The services occur daily, and are realized when new discoveries are made. And there have been numerous.
you do recognize theoretical physics is.......THEORETICAL? Please re-read Bishadi's comment: "The two pillars"--you even talk about it in religious terms! What reality is THEORETICAL physics based on? THEORETICAL reality? Which is what...??? How? It is not a "need to invoke" --it just is how it is. Faith is not a crutch for a lack of understanding--I know that's what you fanatical atheists think it is, but it isn't. Faith is an adherence to a particular view of purpose and destiny.
All physics are theoretical. Nope, I talk about it in scientific terms, what the issues is, and why the issue prevents the understanding of the fundamental nature of gravity. You do not understand what theoretical means in the scientific context. You should instead capitalize "I don't understand science and through that misunderstanding I think I am winning this debate". Faith is a crutch for lack of understanding. You are demonstrating this by acting out the stereotype, "I don't understand this, it must be false, and god is the answer". You are substituting the only means of answering the questions poised in our universe by invoking faith, something that does not have the ability to answer such questions.
oh, honey...stop embarrassing yourself. This is the standard reply of those who worship in the religion of science when they've been shown that the basis of their reasoning is no different than the basis of reasoning used by theists. I do know what theory means in the scientific context. It is "the best we know so far" and that is basically it. I have not done that at all, and the fact that you insist it is so shows your own blind faith in your set bigotry.
I would like to say the same for you. I suggest you spend $50 in physics texts here, http://www.sciambookclub.com/ There is nothing that is a definite law in science. It is possible for anything to be proven wrong at any moment, and if it is, the old is cast to the side for the new. For example, Newtons law of gravity was left in shambles with Einsteins theories of relativity. Newtons law may explain certain things, however Einsteins theory explains all things. Just in a bit more complicated means, hence the reason when Newtons laws are used for simple problems. Without Einstein's theories, modern life would likely not be as it is now. It is the standard reply for those who say "you do recognize theoretical physics is.......THEORETICAL?", in doing so admitting they are a bit over their head on the issue of any topic regarding science. As if there is a step above theoretical. You have on multiple occasions thus far. I wouldn't go far as to say it is bigotry, but the refusal to accept a low energy state in the pursuit of science. Instead of physicists throwing their hands up and saying "we can't do it, all physics are theoretical, god did it", and firmly believe they should pursue the truth derived from science.
I suppose then with "Einsteins theory explains all things", then there is no explanation as to why Einsteins theory had to be altered/modified....? So much for Einsteins theory explaining all things.
We don't have a Unified Theory of Everything. That's the ultimate goal of science, but we aren't there yet.
