By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Ricky Gervais explaining how he became an Atheist

theRepublic on 08 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:
There is plenty we don't know about gravity, but we sort of went off topic.

There is a difference between theory and faith. I'm not sure how to explain it to you, but it bothers me that you can't tell the difference.

There is none.  It bothers me that you can't realize that.

Theory is simply trying to fill in the blanks with what seems to make the most sense to you specifically based on the blanks that need to be filled in your scientific model.  It's why different scientists often have different theories until people decide to all agree on one.

At least not those kind of theories that can't actually be tested.

Maybe the dictionary will help.

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Theory - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

How is there more proof of Dark Energy then God.

How is it anymore likely there is a force of energy pushing everything... rather then an omniscent being pushing it or tiny waves of "space wind" or whatever else.

How are gravity particles anymore likely then little gremlins pulling down things and increasing gravity or just that everyone got their math equations wrong?

Furthermore... what if someone... examining the world comes to the conclusion it was all created by a supreme being?  How is this not a theory?

It is not a theory because there is no proof.  It is an illogical leap.  The conculusion does not follow from the facts.

Dark energy is a logical conclusion based on the current facts we know about the universe.  It could easily change if the facts change.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Around the Network
theRepublic on 08 May 2009

Before anyone gets the wrong idea about me, I would like to make it known that I am Catholic.

I just think it is wrong, and a disservice to both religion and the scientific community to start trying to confuse the two.



Switch Code: SW-7377-9189-3397 -- Nintendo Network ID: theRepublic -- Steam ID: theRepublic

Now Playing
Switch - Super Mario Maker 2 (2019)
3DS - Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney (Trilogy) (2005/2014)
Mobile - Yugioh Duel Links (2017)
Mobile - Super Mario Run (2017)
PC - Borderlands 2 (2012)
PC - Deep Rock Galactic (2020)

Kasz216 on 09 May 2009
fmc83 said:
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:
There is plenty we don't know about gravity, but we sort of went off topic.

There is a difference between theory and faith. I'm not sure how to explain it to you, but it bothers me that you can't tell the difference.

There is none.  It bothers me that you can't realize that.

Theory is simply trying to fill in the blanks with what seems to make the most sense to you specifically based on the blanks that need to be filled in your scientific model.  It's why different scientists often have different theories until people decide to all agree on one.

At least not those kind of theories that can't actually be tested.

Maybe the dictionary will help.

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Theory - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

How is there more proof of Dark Energy then God.

How is it anymore likely there is a force of energy pushing everything... rather then an omniscent being pushing it or tiny waves of "space wind" or whatever else.

How are gravity particles anymore likely then little gremlins pulling down things and increasing gravity or just that everyone got their math equations wrong?

Furthermore... what if someone... examining the world comes to the conclusion it was all created by a supreme being?  How is this not a theory?

 

1. There isn't, but related to other things, there's more evidence for dark energy than for god.

2. Who the hell said, that a force of energy is the final thing pushing things? No one!

3. How is god more likely then little gremlins pulling down things and increasing gravity or just that everyone got their favourite book (which was written 3400-1680 years ago) wrong?

4. If after knowing all the other problems, the beginning of everything is leading there and you get to the final question and then somebody makes plausible through correlation to other things, that there is a supreme being it's not a problem to any scientist at all (well, there'll still be the question left, what was before that supreme being)

 

Even if there is a "supreme being" why the hell should he/she/it give a shit about what I did in my life.

 

 

1) No there isn't.

2) People who beleive in Dark Energy... that's what is pushing the univers.

3) All of those things are completly equally likely as there is no proof for any and all just best guesses.

4) What does that have to do with anything?

 



Kasz216 on 09 May 2009
theRepublic said:
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:
There is plenty we don't know about gravity, but we sort of went off topic.

There is a difference between theory and faith. I'm not sure how to explain it to you, but it bothers me that you can't tell the difference.

There is none.  It bothers me that you can't realize that.

Theory is simply trying to fill in the blanks with what seems to make the most sense to you specifically based on the blanks that need to be filled in your scientific model.  It's why different scientists often have different theories until people decide to all agree on one.

At least not those kind of theories that can't actually be tested.

Maybe the dictionary will help.

Faith - firm belief in something for which there is no proof

Theory - the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

How is there more proof of Dark Energy then God.

How is it anymore likely there is a force of energy pushing everything... rather then an omniscent being pushing it or tiny waves of "space wind" or whatever else.

How are gravity particles anymore likely then little gremlins pulling down things and increasing gravity or just that everyone got their math equations wrong?

Furthermore... what if someone... examining the world comes to the conclusion it was all created by a supreme being?  How is this not a theory?

It is not a theory because there is no proof.  It is an illogical leap.  The conculusion does not follow from the facts.

Dark energy is a logical conclusion based on the current facts we know about the universe.  It could easily change if the facts change.

How is Dark Energy a logical conclusion based on the current facts?

How is Dark Energy any more logical then any number of other forces that could push stuff?

The whole basis behind Dark energy is...

1) It was created by the big bang...

2) For some reason it makes things keep going faster... somehow.... even though energy should be expended as it pushes things... not grow in power.

 



Rath on 09 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:

It is not a theory because there is no proof.  It is an illogical leap.  The conculusion does not follow from the facts.

Dark energy is a logical conclusion based on the current facts we know about the universe.  It could easily change if the facts change.

How is Dark Energy a logical conclusion based on the current facts?

How is Dark Energy any more logical then any number of other forces that could push stuff?

The whole basis behind Dark energy is...

1) It was created by the big bang...

2) For some reason it makes things keep going faster... somehow.... even though energy should be expended as it pushes things... not grow in power.

 

Point 2 is incorrect. The universe is not pushing outwards, it is expanding. To be pushing outwards would require something for it to push against.

The idea of dark energy is a hypothetical (note: not theoretical, there is not enough proof for dark energy for it to be a theory) solution to the problem of an accelerating expansion of the universe.

Dark energy is not necessarily a logical conclusion as we do not have enough evidence to base it on, however unlike god the theory of dark energy can be tested empirically and proven incorrect which is why it is science while 'god did it' is faith.

Also the gravity particle you were talking about earlier is more likely than gremlins because it fits neatly into an established scientific theory with a very considerable amount of evidence behind it (quantum field theory) while gremlins do not fit into any theory and mostl likely can't be tested empirically.

 



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 09 May 2009
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
theRepublic said:

It is not a theory because there is no proof.  It is an illogical leap.  The conculusion does not follow from the facts.

Dark energy is a logical conclusion based on the current facts we know about the universe.  It could easily change if the facts change.

How is Dark Energy a logical conclusion based on the current facts?

How is Dark Energy any more logical then any number of other forces that could push stuff?

The whole basis behind Dark energy is...

1) It was created by the big bang...

2) For some reason it makes things keep going faster... somehow.... even though energy should be expended as it pushes things... not grow in power.

 

Point 2 is incorrect. The universe is not pushing outwards, it is expanding. To be pushing outwards would require something for it to push against.

The idea of dark energy is a hypothetical (note: not theoretical, there is not enough proof for dark energy for it to be a theory) solution to the problem of an accelerating expansion of the universe.

Dark energy is not necessarily a logical conclusion as we do not have enough evidence to base it on, however unlike god the theory of dark energy can be tested empirically and proven incorrect which is why it is science while 'god did it' is faith.

Also the gravity particle you were talking about earlier is more likely than gremlins because it fits neatly into an established scientific theory with a very considerable amount of evidence behind it (quantum field theory) while gremlins do not fit into any theory and mostl likely can't be tested empirically.

 

How?  The current theory is "we can't detect it".  So in otherwords... there is no way to disprove dark energies existence.

Gravitons work the exact same way.  As do many other things that we make up to hold together our current model of physics because we don't have another one.

 



Rath on 09 May 2009
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

Point 2 is incorrect. The universe is not pushing outwards, it is expanding. To be pushing outwards would require something for it to push against.

The idea of dark energy is a hypothetical (note: not theoretical, there is not enough proof for dark energy for it to be a theory) solution to the problem of an accelerating expansion of the universe.

Dark energy is not necessarily a logical conclusion as we do not have enough evidence to base it on, however unlike god the theory of dark energy can be tested empirically and proven incorrect which is why it is science while 'god did it' is faith.

Also the gravity particle you were talking about earlier is more likely than gremlins because it fits neatly into an established scientific theory with a very considerable amount of evidence behind it (quantum field theory) while gremlins do not fit into any theory and mostl likely can't be tested empirically.

 

How?  The current theory is "we can't detect it".  So in otherwords... there is no way to disprove dark energies existence.

Gravitons work the exact same way.  As do many other things that we make up to hold together our current model of physics because we don't have another one.

 

You're right, we can't detect it.

However unlike god, testing it is not an impossibility. There is no physically possible way to scientifically test the existence of god because he is theorised to exist in a higher plane of being, dark energy (if it exists) exists on our plane of being under our laws of physics and as such can be tested.

Us being unable to test it due to not having the technology doesn't make the science less valid, it just means its not proven - hence why dark energy is currently only considered hypothetical.



Kasz216 on 09 May 2009
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:
Rath said:

Point 2 is incorrect. The universe is not pushing outwards, it is expanding. To be pushing outwards would require something for it to push against.

The idea of dark energy is a hypothetical (note: not theoretical, there is not enough proof for dark energy for it to be a theory) solution to the problem of an accelerating expansion of the universe.

Dark energy is not necessarily a logical conclusion as we do not have enough evidence to base it on, however unlike god the theory of dark energy can be tested empirically and proven incorrect which is why it is science while 'god did it' is faith.

Also the gravity particle you were talking about earlier is more likely than gremlins because it fits neatly into an established scientific theory with a very considerable amount of evidence behind it (quantum field theory) while gremlins do not fit into any theory and mostl likely can't be tested empirically.

 

How?  The current theory is "we can't detect it".  So in otherwords... there is no way to disprove dark energies existence.

Gravitons work the exact same way.  As do many other things that we make up to hold together our current model of physics because we don't have another one.

 

You're right, we can't detect it.

However unlike god, testing it is not an impossibility. There is no physically possible way to scientifically test the existence of god because he is theorised to exist in a higher plane of being, dark energy (if it exists) exists on our plane of being under our laws of physics and as such can be tested.

Us being unable to test it due to not having the technology doesn't make the science less valid, it just means its not proven - hence why dark energy is currently only considered hypothetical.

Why would it be impossible to detect a higher plane of being?

Afterall there is also a scientific theory that there are dimensions we can not perceive.  Certaintly a technology may be developed one day to detcect those.  Why not this "higher plane".

 



Rath on 09 May 2009
Kasz216 said:

Why would it be impossible to detect a higher plane of being?

Afterall there is also a scientific theory that there are dimensions we can not perceive.  Certaintly a technology may be developed one day to detcect those.  Why not this "higher plane".

 

Because no matter the science of the time it can still be claimed that god is above it. Basically god is by definition impossible to disprove no matter how advanced our technology or knowledge is.

Falsifiability is a hugely important idea in science and as god is not falsifiable it simply isn't science.

 



Kasz216 on 09 May 2009
Rath said:
Kasz216 said:

Why would it be impossible to detect a higher plane of being?

Afterall there is also a scientific theory that there are dimensions we can not perceive.  Certaintly a technology may be developed one day to detcect those.  Why not this "higher plane".

 

Because no matter the science of the time it can still be claimed that god is above it. Basically god is by definition impossible to disprove no matter how advanced our technology or knowledge is.

Falsifiability is a hugely important idea in science and as god is not falsifiable it simply isn't science.

 

The same could be said for Dark Energy.  We have no way of currently detecting it.  Furthermore we don't even know how to begin to undersand how we could detect it.

The same could be said for Gravitons and Higgs particles or whatever they're called.

Every time they fail at detecting a Graviton they say "Oh... it's there.  We just can't see it yet.  We don't know if we ever will beacuse they hide behind other particles."