Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

A number of various books contain information about assorted gods that billions of people accept as fact. I don't believe those either.

As a fully mature American living in the 21st Century you should have the ability of recognize B.S. when you see it. The comment you posted about dark matter is pure B.S. and whoever wrote it is a world class bull shitter. It's comparable to the idiots who yap about the universe being 13.4 billion years old. If you think about that and what they base their claim on you will see that it's another example of their world-class B.S. And the same is true for the Big Bang.

Use your mind and stop believing B.S. Otherwise you might as well believe in gods, devils, demons, angels, spirits, ghosts, and zombies.

I'm sorry you haven't bothered to research anything to do with astrophysics, and are throwing a defensive tantrum to make yourself feel better about it.

Speaking of bullshit claims, didn't you claim the Big Bang is a Catholic origin myth, when it predates Catholicism by thousands of years in Vedic beliefs?

Might as well start insulting me for not believing 9-11 was an "inside job," or believing the moon landing happened.

Since it was a Catholic priest who publicized the Big Bang and got the local yokels to believe while the Vedics kept it to themselves I'll give the Catholic priest the credit. Too bad the Vedics never got a copyright.

The Big Bang is only applicable on an individual star basis when it goes supernova. It doesn't work for the universe. And even then it has to be modified in order to fit supernova physics.

The Chinese claim that they will soon go to the moon. We'll see how they do. We should have sold them the blueprints. It could have helped reduced the deficit.

[Jenny A]

No that's not how observations work in science. You don't have to physically observe something for its effects to be tested and measured, and not all observations have to be made visually; in fact hardly any scientific observation is visual.

But that's what you require of God, seems you are setting a double standard.

GC

We require dark matter, the Higgs Bosen particle, black holes, gravity, etc. to be physically demonstrable in some way. That's what we require of god. It's the same standard. So? Can you show any physically demonstrable evidence of god? There's a Nobel in it you can, I'm sure. Hint: I feel him in my heart is not physically demonstrable evidence.

[Rampant.A.I.]

I'm sorry you haven't bothered to research anything to do with astrophysics, and are throwing a defensive tantrum to make yourself feel better about it.

Speaking of bullshit claims, didn't you claim the Big Bang is a Catholic origin myth, when it predates Catholicism by thousands of years in Vedic beliefs?

Might as well start insulting me for not believing 9-11 was an "inside job," or believing the moon landing happened.

Since it was a Catholic priest who publicized the Big Bang and got the local yokels to believe while the Vedics kept it to themselves I'll give the Catholic priest the credit. Too bad the Vedics never got a copyright.

The Big Bang is only applicable on an individual star basis when it goes supernova. It doesn't work for the universe. And even then it has to be modified in order to fit supernova physics.

The Chinese claim that they will soon go to the moon. We'll see how they do. We should have sold them the blueprints. It could have helped reduced the deficit.

He was also an astrophysicist.

The theory of a religious cosmology dates to the Vedics.

You're tracing a theory proposed to an astrophysicist, and claiming it's invalid because the astrophysicist happened to be Catholic.

If so, we should also throw out Hubble's Law, and the Hubble Constant.

Should we throw out the methodology and data gathered by the Human Genome Project since Francis Collins is an Evangelical?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Why do you believe the Big Bang Theory as the cause of creation?

[downbeatplumb]

The reason some of us call you lot idiots is because of statements like that. Experiments can be devised to test for the presence and influence of dark matter (and dark energy). Tell me of an experiment to do the same for a god.

Incidentally, for the record: I happen to be one of those people who find the dark matter hypothesis unsatisfying. It strikes me as far too conveniently ad hoc. However, I am willing to listen to the evidence from those far more knowledgable of the subject than I will ever be.

I wonder if gravity works differently at the very very large scale, like things are different at the quantum level?

[Jackalope]

The reason some of us call you lot idiots is because of statements like that. Experiments can be devised to test for the presence and influence of dark matter (and dark energy). Tell me of an experiment to do the same for a god.

Incidentally, for the record: I happen to be one of those people who find the dark matter hypothesis unsatisfying. It strikes me as far too conveniently ad hoc. However, I am willing to listen to the evidence from those far more knowledgable of the subject than I will ever be.

I wonder if gravity works differently at the very very large scale, like things are different at the quantum level?

There's a theory for that: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_...n_dynamics

Others are also working on unified theories to reconcile quantum theory and relativity:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Unified_Theory - seen as an intermediate step to a Theory of Everything (in physics).

[Jenny A]

We all have beliefs inculcated in us from the moment we're capable of grasping our surroundings and learn language. It's just not in human nature - in ANY humans nature - to go around rockin the boat of their web of beliefs. I don't care who they are or what ideology they hold to, they will demonstrably have beliefs they don't challenge and protect with some degree of irrationality (this is especially visible with political beliefs). And the reason for this doesn't seem to be terribly hard to recognize and appreciate: constantly considering your beliefs about the world (especially deeply held ones) doesn't tend to lead to a productive organism, but often a paralysis of thought. This is where the true tradegy of what Betrand Russell noticed can be seen: The idiots are all cocksure and the smarter ones full of doubt, arrogant though that comes across as.

That's about it. Unfortunately even knowing that we are aware of confirmation bias doesn't always help. Thinking that you think clearly because you know you are biased is a bias in and of itself.

The only trick I know of is to be aware that what makes your blood rise (please no phallic jokes ), turns your brain off.

[Cyberman]

As a True Gentleman I wouldn't presume to insert anything phallic in there.

[Jenny A]

As a True Gentleman I wouldn't presume to insert anything phallic in there.

Do you know any true gentlemen who are still fun?

[Cyberman]

The Big Bang is only applicable on an individual star basis when it goes supernova. It doesn't work for the universe. And even then it has to be modified in order to fit supernova physics.

Pardon?

This is gibberish. The Big Bang has nothing to do with supernovae. The two aren't even remotely similar. You seem to have confused these things on a scale comparable to stripping down a car engine to look for the horses in it. It's that sort of basic misunderstanding of the terminology.