READ THIS- Dark matter & God.

[mexistaniX]

Ignore dark energy for the moment being since the existence of dark matter is the base of it.

Dark matter is an invisible and theoretical matter that has every piece of proof to exist. Gravitational lenses can see that the light bordering the outside of a galaxy is skewed, while the use microwave background detection is used to find out exactly where fluctuations may occur in temperature, both of which prove dark matter to be relevant to the universe.
In addition, the velocity at which a galaxy rotates would cause it to fling all of the stars within itself outwards in the direction of rotation. However, galaxies like this do not do so. Hence proving that dark matter holds together the galaxy with a “gravity” that prevents this chaos.

Oh, one more thing… Dark matter has never been directly detected or “seen”.

God has never been seen. God has never been “detected”. God has never been directly proven. But there is proof beyond the scripts. Perfection in nature and the universe.

Dark matter is scientifically ubiquitous, as is God in religious scripture.

This subject involves two directly metaphysical subjects. I refer to dark matter in terms of actual matter as metaphysical because its existence aids the concept of universal physics, but it has not been directly proven even once and it is "physics-defying" when isolated.

Please explain to me how one believes in one, and not the other, with the similar mindset.

No comments should be illogical.

 

[Tyro]

Dark matter is an invisible and theoretical matter that has every piece of proof to exist.

You've already shown that it's nothing like any religious concept.

Gravitational lenses can see that the light bordering the outside of a galaxy is skewed, while the use microwave background detection is used to find out exactly where fluctuations may occur in temperature, both of which prove dark matter to be relevant to the universe.
In addition, the velocity at which a galaxy rotates would cause it to fling all of the stars within itself outwards in the direction of rotation. However, galaxies like this do not do so. Hence proving that dark matter holds together the galaxy with a “gravity” that prevents this chaos.

Oh, one more thing… Dark matter has never been directly detected or “seen”.

God has never been seen. God has never been “detected”. God has never been directly proven. But there is proof beyond the scripts. Perfection in nature and the universe.

Yes, and you, a teenager, understand the nature of the universe better than brilliant physicists who are predominantly atheistic.

Dark matter is scientifically ubiquitous, as is God in religious scripture.

Wait, what? That's like saying that references to washing machines are ubiquitous in a manual on washing machines. Manuals, however, are far more consistent. The only relative similarity between religious books -- and texts within books, for that matter -- is a high degree of superstition.

This subject involves two directly metaphysical subjects. I refer to dark matter in terms of actual matter as metaphysical because its existence aids the concept of universal physics, but it has not been directly proven even once and it is "physics-defying" when isolated.

Has anyone ever been so far as to even want to go look more like? Look I can do it, too.

Please explain to me how one believes in one, and not the other, with the similar mindset.

No comments should be illogical.

You've yet to show a single similarity between the two. Unicorns and writing desks have far more in common than god and dark matter.

 

[mexistaniX]

Thanks for opinions

Not really looking for arguments on this one, but I guess I may have seemed biased in this post, I kind of meant to keep it neutral.

Also, I guess if I were to side the religious argument, they are not related in subject at all, but rather in concept.

ALSO, I believe dark matter exists, it is too obvious of proof, but there is no proof whatsoever of it physically existing in the universe, and I'm sure of this because those brilliant scientists said so.

You cannot prove the existence of god, in the same manner that you cannot prove the existence of dark matter.

 

[Meeder1]

Thanks for opinions

Not really looking for arguments on this one, but I guess I may have seemed biased in this post, I kind of meant to keep it neutral.

Also, I guess if I were to side the religious argument, they are not related in subject at all, but rather in concept.

ALSO, I believe dark matter exists, it is too obvious of proof, but there is no proof whatsoever of it physically existing in the universe, and I'm sure of this because those brilliant scientists said so.

You cannot prove the existence of god, in the same manner that you cannot prove the existence of dark matter.

You weren't looking for arguments, so you decided to post it in the SFA section? Either you're backing down because you know you've been proven wrong, or the thread needs to be moved into the off-topic section.

 

[mexistaniX]

Well I didn't know that... I suppose I will side a side, I stated my defense previous post.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Dark matter exists in the same way the gravity existed before Newton. It is there but we don't know what it does. Actually there is proof of dark matter existing, it can be collected in the tiny reactions that happens in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Also you are exhibiting a logical fallacy. x happens then y and z happens then y so x and z must be the same. it is like saying Rain makes the ground wet and a water hose makes the ground wet so they must be the same thing.

 

[Imagine]

God and Dark matter are two completely different things.

We will never be able to prove god exists, yet we have already proven that dark matter exists.

If you're looking with something to compare with god, try evolution, although that has pretty much been proven too.

 

[mexistaniX]

Dark matter exists in the same way the gravity existed before Newton. It is there but we don't know what it does. Actually there is proof of dark matter existing, it can be collected in the tiny reactions that happens in the Large Hadron Collider at CERN.

Also you are exhibiting a logical fallacy. x happens then y and z happens then y so x and z must be the same. it is like saying Rain makes the ground wet and a water hose makes the ground wet so they must be the same thing.

It has not been proven in the CERN. Only evidence is indirect. No articles have been published otherwise, I would have read them, there are even physicists at the CERN laboratory that say that dark matter may be an illusion(although I highly disagree).

http://science.slashdot.org/story/1...physicist-says-dark-matter-may-be-an-illusion

Also, I am stating that x=y is a concept that shows the same concept of solving u=z. The intermediary steps to attain the solutions are the same. So I am saying that the process used to calculate trends in the stock market is using the same concept as the process to calculate the trends of social reform in other countries. (Yes, there are computers that calculate both)

God and Dark matter are two completely different things.

We will never be able to prove god exists, yet we have already proven that dark matter exists.

If you're looking with something to compare with god, try evolution, although that has pretty much been proven too.

lol
Dark matter has not been directly proven, it only exists based off of evidence, and it doesn't and didn't even exist in theory.
It's been proven in the same way that God's been proven.

There are theories that dark matter is irrelevant and nonexistent only because we don't have a full understanding of gravity.

Dark matter is basically a classical physics solution to a gravitation problem.
Quantum physics may be used to explain the gravity dilemmas in a concise manner. There is a unified theory of cosmology that makes dark matter irrelevant to the solution for "extra gravity" in the universe, as it applies both general relativity and quantum theory into the same boat. This allows quantum gravitation to take place, and although it is a theory, dark matter is still open and equally proven wrong if our understanding of quantum gravitation is increased.

Basically, as I previously stated with the classical physics solution, we are only thinking inside the box of physics that we know.

HOWEVER, I have a personal 85% belief that it is dark matter, but I do understand that any findings of the misconceptions about how gravity works, or any quantum gravitation theory that is directly proven will allow us to explain "dark matter" and why the universe has "unknown gravity".

It could be some other "stuff" for all we know like a condense cloud of other subatomic particles as once previously believed.

 

[Imagine]

lol
Dark matter has not been directly proven, it only exists based off of evidence, and it doesn't and didn't even exist in theory.
It's been proven in the same way that God's been proven.

There are theories that dark matter is irrelevant and nonexistent only because we don't have a full understanding of gravity.

Dark matter is basically a classical physics solution to a gravitation problem.
Quantum physics may be used to explain the gravity dilemmas in a concise manner. There is a unified theory of cosmology that makes dark matter irrelevant to the solution for "extra gravity" in the universe, as it applies both general relativity and quantum theory into the same boat. This allows quantum gravitation to take place, and although it is a theory, dark matter is still open and equally proven wrong if our understanding of quantum gravitation is increased.

Basically, as I previously stated with the classical physics solution, we are only thinking inside the box of physics that we know.

HOWEVER, I have a personal 85% belief that it is dark matter, but I do understand that any findings of the misconceptions about how gravity works, or any quantum gravitation theory that is directly proven will allow us to explain "dark matter" and why the universe has "unknown gravity".

It could be some other "stuff" for all we know like a condense cloud of other subatomic particles as once previously believed.

That is not my point. My point is that we have clues that lead to the expectation that dark matter exists. Also, dark matter, if it does exist, will eventually be found + proven to exist.

You can't say any of these things for God, we will never be able to prove he exists, and we have no clues that prove he exists. (Other than the bible, but saying that the bible proves god exists is almost like a circular definition.)

 

[mexistaniX]

Yes the Bible is 100% circular logic, which is not that much of any real logic.

But you are looking at the microscopic scale, while I am looking at ratio between a microscopic/macroscopic scale.

When you die, you will know if god exists if something crazy happens and you're alive, or you will simply cease to exist, which ever one.

Our "clues" are relative to what we believe, so if someone believes that quantum physics is their key to finding the answer, then there will be another person that believes we should base it all off of classical physics and remain inside the comforts of conventional physics. Quite similarly(again, similar in concept of intermediary process), if a person decides to believe in God, they will find out, and if a person does not decide to believe in god, they'll either be wrong or right. Every theory is based off of proof, and to the quantum physicist, classical physics exists, but they understand that the classical physicist will not understand the different properties of quantum physics. The classical physicist will go about using classical physics to prove it without regard to the idea of quantum gravitation (which is what reactions in the CERN are based off of). So, in the end, you'll find the answer, but for both we don't know the answer.

In the same way, you are right, if whatever theory about universal gravitation is proven, then you will know if dark matter exists or not.

 

[Drugs]

You always seem to miss the point, your saying god is a theory? Im saying everything u can possible think of that cant be proved impossible is a theory.

 

[mexistaniX]

God is a "theory" by my own terms.
By definition, a theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something with its own independent value aside from that of other principles.
So yes, I do believe as God as a theory, however I am solid on my belief of this "theory". Only I am isolated in my belief as well as proof I see in certain scriptures and certain perfections in mathematics and nature.

 

[Drugs]

then me beleiving somewhere on this earth fairys go about and gnomes live underground are just as valid, aslong as there is enough basis for a theory as in my word saying it is true, i.e. religious text

 

[Noam]

God is a "theory" by my own terms.
By definition, a theory is a system of ideas intended to explain something with its own independent value aside from that of other principles.
So yes, I do believe as God as a theory, however I am solid on my belief of this "theory". Only I am isolated in my belief as well as proof I see in certain scriptures and certain perfections in mathematics and nature.

A theory in what context?
Scientifically, A theory is as close to fact as can possibly be achieved. Fact is when the theory has been tested on every possible subject. For example, to prove gravity as a fact, you would have to measure the effects of gravity on every atom in the universe. Due to the impossibility of this, gravity is a theory - A theory occurs when the overall body of evidence strongly supports a conclusion and no piece of reliable evidence exists to disprove it.

As such, God is not a theory. God is a hypothesis. A Theory is not something you believe, a theory is something you prove.

 

[Emperor Nero]

A theory in what context?
Scientifically, A theory is as close to fact as can possibly be achieved. Fact is when the theory has been tested on every possible subject. For example, to prove gravity as a fact, you would have to measure the effects of gravity on every atom in the universe. Due to the impossibility of this, gravity is a theory - A theory occurs when the overall body of evidence strongly supports a conclusion and no piece of reliable evidence exists to disprove it.

As such, God is not a theory. God is a hypothesis. A Theory is not something you believe, a theory is something you prove.

While true mostly, law is the closest thing to fact that you can get. A theory that has been tested in nearly every possible way becomes a law.

 

[malakadang]

While true mostly, law is the closest thing to fact that you can get. A theory that has been tested in nearly every possible way becomes a law.

Scientific theories don't become scientific laws, the 2 have very different uses.

Scientific laws describe certain phenomena. Scientific theories explain how these phenomena come to be, and how they work.

 

[Herman Li]

I see where your going with this OP, and it SORT OF makes sense. Thing is, our ancestors and basically how people view 'God' today is always in a religious sense, based on religious texts and the like, yet none of them describe their gods as anything close to what 'dark matter' supposedly is.

Our cultural definition of god is basically the answer to our unanswered questions of creation, reason, etc.

Dark Matter, however, as you described, seems to be the 'natural force' holding together detectable and visible points in the universe that otherwise couldn't exist as it currently does.

I could agree that dark matter = 'god', in the sense that god is a natural force keeping all of creation and life together, but I cannot see the similarity between a dark-matter-god and a religious one.

 

[Emperor Nero]

Scientific theories don't become scientific laws, the 2 have very different uses.

Scientific laws describe certain phenomena. Scientific theories explain how these phenomena come to be, and how they work.

My bad, but laws are essentially derived from theory.

Law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation.

But looking at it from Herman Li's perspective it appears to be that this thread would simply just be arguing semantics. What is God defined as?

 

[VenomXI]

One important distinction you need to make here is the difference between dark matter existing as a theory and God existing as a theory. A theory, in science, has nothing to do with beliefs or faith. In science we only look at observable phenomena. Science looks at evidence and observations and doesn't deal with what you believe in or what you think exists. There is no place for superstitions or the like in science. With that aside I'd like to say that I'm not arguing on the existence of God. I'm just pointing out that you cannot term god as a scientific theory.