(March 12, 2017 at 9:35 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote:The special case is what I would go for, in terms of the existence.
That's why we can't define God; only he can define himself.

I think you mean 'special pleading', not 'special case'.  Special pleading is a logical fallacy.

If we can't define God, then we can't even think about God, it's as simple as that.  Try to think about anything - poetry, a cheese sandwich, a duck, anything at all - without having defined it first.

Boru

Bollocks. Words are slippery things that we have but an evanescent grasp upon. If I were to ask you to give me a definition of 'table', your definition would include things that are not tables, and exclude things that clearly are tables. The idea that if you can't define it that you can't think it is bogus. We have plenty of words about which we only have vague 'feelings' of applicability without any definite definition. The major definitional themes of what God is or means are laid out fairly plainly by the world's major religions. That is as much as we ask for any other word that we use, yet for God the standard applied is different. That's just an example of special pleading.

As long as you gave the example, define 'poetry' without quoting a dictionary.

---

(March 13, 2017 at 6:23 am)Stimbo Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 1:03 am)Godschild Wrote: I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

Name six.

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

(March 13, 2017 at 4:02 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 1:03 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

I took out portions of your post to make this simpler, not to change what you had to say.

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.
Lately many things have brought the "big bang" into question and one is red shift. We also know that there is a need for dark matter to keep the "big bang assumption" alive and well with all the new data we have. I'm guessing you are also in support of dark matter. You and most all "big bang" supporters are because it holds the theory together. Yet in the last 40 years in neutral labs as you call them not one bit of dark matter has ever been detected, not a micron of evidence exist for it, period. Yet people make scientific shows and put them on TV, it's written about in magazines and scientific articles like it is the most proven thing in the history of man, and that is a bald faced lie.
Science claims it is invisible an can't be seen, once heard that before from you and them about God, where is He we can't see Him give us proof. Yet you'll accept this magic material, yes magic because it's the only thing holding the "big bang" theory together, no proof not a micron. You toss away Jesus like trash because you think He is a figment of the imagination of the Christian Church, yet we do have writings about Him and from many sources, yet you will support with your last breath an invisible magic matter while calling Christians delusional. What are you going to say after the next 40 years and the "magical matter" still hasn't a micron of actual proof from those neutral labs, which means there still will be no real and honest peer reviews?
Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy. Just remember that you fit your own criticism of my belief in God with your support of dark matter and it's magical properties to hold up the "big bang assumption."

GC

---

The cases are not parallel: There is evidence for dark matter, there is no evidence for God. Nothing in physics makes sense without the dark matter hypothesis, nothing - full stop - is helped by the God hypothesis.

Further more, 'proof' isn't measured in microns - a micron is one one-millionth of a meter, so I'm not sure what you mean by this. Also, what is a 'neutral lab'?

Boru

"The cases are not parallel," this is just a reflective statement. There is no evidence for dark matter, how can you have evidence of something unseen and no lab evidence, not a micron. By the way if for no other reason, l'm a woodworker and l hand sharpen my hand cutting tools and the media used is measured in microns. The "big bang" seemed to be a!right until we found the universe was on a supposed never ending expansion. Then something had to be invented to plug in to make sense of an expanding universe, that something was invisible matter, invisible, why, for the reason it couldn't be anything else, science needed something invisible to explain why we could use the red shift, which we know it too has started to be questioned. Ask Brian37 what a neutral lab is, l personally would have used "independent lab," but I knew what he meant. You can argue for dark matter forever, but until it is proven and verified by peer review l'm not buying it, sorry Boru but this is how you try to hold Christians feet to the fire and ...Well your feet are going to be placed in the same place.

GC

(March 13, 2017 at 10:36 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 6:23 am)Stimbo Wrote: Name six.

Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

Thank you. At least you showed your work, instead of simply asserting it like GC.

Now we have something to chew on. See, GC? That's how it's done. Not so hard, is it?

Quote:Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God

Certifiably and batshit, G-C.  At your age you should not still believe in magic and invisible friends.

(March 13, 2017 at 11:15 am)Godschild Wrote: There is no evidence for dark matter

Ahem.

---

(March 13, 2017 at 10:36 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

While it's good to see someone generous enough to do GC's homework for him, "33 Top Scientists" is going a bit far, I'm afraid.

First and foremost is Eric J. Lerner, who has a Bachelor's in physics and nothing else to his name. He's a known crank, with his main claim to fame being his authoring The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, a pop-sci book published by Random House that was torn apart from every angle by anyone and everyone with an actual education in physics. He advocates for an alternative, plasma-physics-based model that also gets completely ravaged any time it's put forth for evaluation. His company, "Lawrenceville Plasma Physics", has only himself as an employee.

Next is Michael Ibison, who claims to have a Ph.D. in laser physics, but has done apparently nothing with it. His published articles, which are scant and difficult to find, are never cited elsewhere, and he now works for a company variously referred to as "EarthTech International" and the "Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin", which is privately funded and has turned out no notable results.

John L. West is essentially no one. James F. Woodward is a history professor who has a pet theory about "reactionless drives" that might be used to power spacecraft. And so on and so on.

Hardly "top scientists", despite the title. It's really not much but a collection of known cranks.

(March 13, 2017 at 4:08 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 11:15 am)Godschild Wrote: There is no evidence for dark matter

Ahem.

---

(March 13, 2017 at 10:36 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: Big Bang Theory Busted By 33 Top Scientists

While it's good to see someone generous enough to do GC's homework for him, "33 Top Scientists" is going a bit far, I'm afraid.

First and foremost is Eric J. Lerner, who has a Bachelor's in physics and nothing else to his name. He's a known crank, with his main claim to fame being his authoring The Big Bang Never Happened: A Startling Refutation of the Dominant Theory of the Origin of the Universe, a pop-sci book published by Random House that was torn apart from every angle by anyone and everyone with an actual education in physics. He advocates for an alternative, plasma-physics-based model that also gets completely ravaged any time it's put forth for evaluation. His company, "Lawrenceville Plasma Physics", has only himself as an employee.

Next is Michael Ibison, who claims to have a Ph.D. in laser physics, but has done apparently nothing with it. His published articles, which are scant and difficult to find, are never cited elsewhere, and he now works for a company variously referred to as "EarthTech International" and the "Institute for Advanced Studies, Austin", which is privately funded and has turned out no notable results.

John L. West is essentially no one. James F. Woodward is a history professor who has a pet theory about "reactionless drives" that might be used to power spacecraft. And so on and so on.

Hardly "top scientists", despite the title. It's really not much but a collection of known cranks.

Actually dark matter has taken a setback recently among many top scientists. 

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...bunked&*

But that still would not mean Jesus or Allah or Yahweh or Buddha or Vishnu are valid gap fills. It only means currently that scientists have to rethink and retest their current observations and data.

(March 13, 2017 at 4:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Actually dark matter has taken a setback recently among many top scientists.

Your link does not support this. Even the top result, which is a popular science article rather than an actual academic source, only talks about one specific possible explanation for dark matter not being particularly likely, not the theory of dark matter itself having any actual issues.

And, again, it wouldn't matter if it did, because the theories surrounding dark matter and dark energy are evidence-based. Even if they are eventually overturned, they are still evidence-based.

Theories about the existence of gods are not.

(March 13, 2017 at 4:58 am)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 1:03 am)Godschild Wrote: I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.

Not really, no.

Even if there were, it wouldn't change anything.

It is true, l've no reason to lie.

Nonpareil Wrote:The Big Bang theory is evidence-based; even if it is eventually overturned (which is unlikely), in the present moment there is still enough support for it to make concluding that it is true a rational thing to do. Likewise for dark matter.

You say it's evidence based and immediately turn around and through doubt into your statement, that doesn't ring of confidence. There has never been enough as the supposed continued expansion showed and then there had to be another reason for the expansion so the supposed dark matter that's invisible gets thrown into the mix for a stop gap. The supposed invisible dark matter is the only thing keeping the big bang from falling apart. 40+ years of lab work and not one little bit of dark matter has shown it's invisible face. I think you meant god's not belief.

Nonpareil Wrote:In case you haven't realized it yet, the thing that determines which of Isaac Newton's theories we accept (gravity and so forth), as opposed to the ones that we discard (alchemy), is evidence, Godschild.

Newton is considered one of the most brilliant men to live, you and I are a long ways from thinking in his realm.

GC

---

(March 13, 2017 at 5:09 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 1:03 am)Godschild Wrote:

---

I took out portions of your post to make this simpler, not to change what you had to say.

I take it that you are in support of the "big bang" as scientific fact. Yet there are secular scientist who have considerable doubt about this assumed fact.
Lately many things have brought the "big bang" into question and one is red shift. We also know that there is a need for dark matter to keep the "big bang assumption" alive and well with all the new data we have. I'm guessing you are also in support of dark matter. You and most all "big bang" supporters are because it holds the theory together. Yet in the last 40 years in neutral labs as you call them not one bit of dark matter has ever been detected, not a micron of evidence exist for it, period. Yet people make scientific shows and put them on TV, it's written about in magazines and scientific articles like it is the most proven thing in the history of man, and that is a bald faced lie.
Science claims it is invisible an can't be seen, once heard that before from you and them about God, where is He we can't see Him give us proof. Yet you'll accept this magic material, yes magic because it's the only thing holding the "big bang" theory together, no proof not a micron. You toss away Jesus like trash because you think He is a figment of the imagination of the Christian Church, yet we do have writings about Him and from many sources, yet you will support with your last breath an invisible magic matter while calling Christians delusional. What are you going to say after the next 40 years and the "magical matter" still hasn't a micron of actual proof from those neutral labs, which means there still will be no real and honest peer reviews?
Call me crazy and or delusional because l believe in a God who has been argued over and attested to by the likes of Newton if that's what makes you happy. Just remember that you fit your own criticism of my belief in God with your support of dark matter and it's magical properties to hold up the "big bang assumption."

GC

---

I don't know what you've been reading, but...

1) By measuring the redshift we can measure how fast galaxies are moving away from our own. With that info, moving back in time, arose the notion that the universe was once in a single point. We'd be moving closer together, if we witnessed a blueshift... but no.

Even red shift is coming under scrutiny and along with no evidence for dark matter there are secular scientist who are questioning the big bang period. It's not my fault they are and since these scientist have doubts and some looking for new theories others like yourself should take notice and ask questions. That is if you are not afraid of the truth.

pocaracas Wrote:2) gravitational lensing around areas where no galaxies are visible is pretty good indication of some dark phenomenon, of a massive scale (massive, as in with mass ) is in place. https://www.lsst.org/science/dark-matter

All that has ever been observed is empty space. Just the distance between galaxies is mind boggling. If dark matter were real the singularity would had to be much larger than what has been presumed, if it were the presumed size with all that matter it probably would have blow ie. expanded itself into oblivion.

pocaracas Wrote:This evidence may be indirect, but it's there, it's a real effect that can be measured by anyone with a good enough tool to observe the sky.

There is no evidence of anything​, until dark matter is found which I seriously doubt, it's been 40 years and a lot of excuses and nothing not one little bit of lab work has shown us dark matter, supposedly the most abundant material in the universe. It sure hasn't effected this solar system.

GC

---

@Brian37, all those people you mentioned help push real science along, you should give credit where it's due instead of trying to down play real science.

GC

---

(March 13, 2017 at 5:41 pm)Nonpareil Wrote:

(March 13, 2017 at 4:36 pm)Brian37 Wrote: Actually dark matter has taken a setback recently among many top scientists.

Your link does not support this. Even the top result, which is a popular science article rather than an actual academic source, only talks about one specific possible explanation for dark matter not being particularly likely, not the theory of dark matter itself having any actual issues.

And, again, it wouldn't matter if it did, because the theories surrounding dark matter and dark energy are evidence-based. Even if they are eventually overturned, they are still evidence-based.

Theories about the existence of gods are not.

How can you have evidence of an unseen thing, if you apply your logic to dark matter you have to extend it to God. I have never claimed l can give an atheist the evidence he/she requires to prove God, the Bible tells us about evidence {which l accept) but non-believers refuse to accept. So how do l differ on dark matter than from you on the Bible.

GC

(March 14, 2017 at 12:02 am)Godschild Wrote: It is true, l've no reason to lie.

I did not say that you were lying.

You are simply wrong.

(March 14, 2017 at 12:02 am)Godschild Wrote: You say it's evidence based and immediately turn around and through doubt into your statement, that doesn't ring of confidence.

It's not doubt, Godschild. It's a simple observation. Even if the Big Bang theory is eventually shown to be incorrect, it is still evidence-based.

Belief in gods is not.

(March 14, 2017 at 12:02 am)Godschild Wrote: Newton is considered one of the most brilliant men to live, you and I are a long ways from thinking in his realm.

...which changes precisely nothing about the fact that we accept those things that he could support with evidence and reject those which he could not.

(March 14, 2017 at 12:02 am)Godschild Wrote: How can you have evidence of an unseen thing

If someone standing beside me is suddenly shot, I don't have to find the shooter to know that there is a gun involved.

(March 14, 2017 at 12:02 am)Godschild Wrote: if you apply your logic to dark matter you have to extend it to God.

No, Godschild. Dark matter has evidence supporting it. Gods do not.

(March 14, 2017 at 12:02 am)Godschild Wrote: I have never claimed l can give an atheist the evidence he/she requires to prove God, the Bible tells us about evidence {which l accept) but non-believers refuse to accept.

Because the Bible is not evidence. Point blank, period. There is and can be no arguing on this point.

If you believe the claims contained within the Bible, then that is fine. But the Bible is not evidence. It does not contain any information which logically supports the conclusion of "a god exists", any more than The Last Unicorn proves the existence of King Haggard. At best, its stories are unverified; more commonly, they are demonstrably fiction. In neither case is it evidence.

You are free to believe whatever you like. If adopting an irrational belief makes you happy, then more power to you.

But when you start claiming to have actual evidence, you're going to have to start presenting some.

(March 14, 2017 at 12:02 am)Godschild Wrote: How can you have evidence of an unseen thing, if you apply your logic to dark matter you have to extend it to God. I have never claimed l can give an atheist the evidence he/she requires to prove God, the Bible tells us about evidence {which l accept) but non-believers refuse to accept. So how do l differ on dark matter than from you on the Bible.

GC

Because yours is an emotional need and dark matter is a scientific theory.