My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

Which bits am I making up, certainly not God/gods, they are well documented in history.

Yes you may be right that I cherry pick, I am a Christian, what I see is another avenue to investigate, you don't.

I haven't invented anything, man has done that, or God.

When you can give me category evidence that there is no God, how you do that? until then I will keep asking, why??

Gonnagle.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,


Just is, stop asking why, nah!! but I agree, it is "quite beautifully simple" ain't God Great

Gonnagle.

I'm a pantheist so I'm on agreement in that I think the universe is awesome. But a personal God, great it otherwise? No.

I am not stopping asking why, I don't ask in the first place. It's nice to
imagine some deity dreamed me into being but that's just vanity.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rhiannon,

Bit of a Pantheist myself, still a Christian.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

Dear Berational,

Which bits am I making up, certainly not God/gods, they are well documented in history.

Yes you may be right that I cherry pick, I am a Christian, what I see is another avenue to investigate, you don't.

I haven't invented anything, man has done that, or God.

When you can give me category evidence that there is no God, how you do that? until then I will keep asking, why??

Gonnagle.

You have invented god as an answer to stuff you do not like not knowing. Just because someone else has invented a myth, you do not have to go along with it. I don't, so why do you?

I do not need to give you evidence that there is no god. You should know this by now. This is the negative proof FALLACY!
You should ONLY believe things for which there IS sufficient evidence.

You know this I am sure, otherwise you would have to believe an almost infinite number of things which I cannot prove do not exist.

Do you believe EVERYTHING until it is shown NOT to be true.

I don't think so.

[Bubbles]

You have invented god as an answer to stuff you do not like not knowing. Just because someone else has invented a myth, you do not have to go along with it. I don't, so why do you?

I do not need to give you evidence that there is no god. You should know this by now. This is the negative proof FALLACY!
You should ONLY believe things for which there IS sufficient evidence.

You know this I am sure, otherwise you would have to believe an almost infinite number of things which I cannot prove do not exist.

Do you believe EVERYTHING until it is shown NOT to be true.

I don't think so.

Like black holes? Or dark matter?

There is no real evidence for black holes or dark matter.

[BeRational]

Like black holes? Or dark matter?

There is no real evidence for black holes or dark matter.

There is evidence for black holes so you are wrong there.

Dark matter and Dark energy are not things, they are place holder names for something that science needs to find an answer to.

They could equally be named notknown1, and notknown2. No one believes in them, but we know that something is wrong and these are convenient names.

[Bubbles]

There is evidence for black holes so you are wrong there.

Dark matter and Dark energy are not things, they are place holder names for something that science needs to find an answer to.

They could equally be named notknown1, and notknown2. No one believes in them, but we know that something is wrong and these are convenient names.

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/01/stephen-hawking-now-thinks-there-are-no-black-holes

Scientists don't always "only believe in things for which there is sufficient evidence."

Sometimes they believe in something that just explains what they see as resolving a question. ( an invented something)

No one has ever seen a black hole.

Science has lots of hypothetical things that until they learn differently they do believe in.

[Rhiannon]

Dear Rhiannon,

Bit of a Pantheist myself, still a Christian.

Gonnagle.

Pantheistic pagan, me. I don't experience a personal deity. If you do I think that makes you a panentheistic Christian.

But hey, labels, just stories.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Berational,

You have invented god as an answer to stuff you do not like not knowing.

What!!  Like the gaps? no for me God is firmly in the science we know already.

Just because someone else has invented a myth, you do not have to go along with it. I don't, so why do you?

Which myth, I know what a myth is, there are lots of myths mentioning God/gods, but I don't find God in myths, I find him in life, in science, how I see the world.

You should ONLY believe things for which there IS sufficient evidence.

I do, see above.

Do you believe EVERYTHING until it is shown NOT to be true.

Not everything, but I confess I am a gut instinct man, sometimes if it feels right.

I do not need to give you evidence that there is no god. You should know this by now. This is the negative proof FALLACY!

Oh right, that is the negative proof fallacy, was wondering about that.

Gonnagle.

[BeRational]

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/01/stephen-hawking-now-thinks-there-are-no-black-holes

Scientists don't always "only believe in things for which there is sufficient evidence."

Sometimes they believe in something that just explains what they see as resolving a question.

No one has ever seen a black hole.

Well no, that's the point you will not see it.

But, you do see the effects of it. There have been many observations of stars orbiting 'nothing'. The nothing is black, and has immense mass, just like the attributes of a black hole.

This is good evidence of a black hole, but does not stop it being something else that we find out about later.

Do you believe in the force of gravity?

[BeRational]

Dear Berational,

What!!  Like the gaps? no for me God is firmly in the science we know already.

Which myth, I know what a myth is, there are lots of myths mentioning God/gods, but I don't find God in myths, I find him in life, in science, how I see the world.

I do, see above.

Not everything, but I confess I am a gut instinct man, sometimes if it feels right.

Oh right, that is the negative proof fallacy, was wondering about that.

Gonnagle.

The thing is, when you do not know something, just stop there.

Don't insert a god or anything else for that matter. Investigate yes, but make up answers to fill the gaps no.

That's currently where you are going wrong.

[Bubbles]

Well no, that's the point you will not see it.

But, you do see the effects of it. There have been many observations of stars orbiting 'nothing'. The nothing is black, and has immense mass, just like the attributes of a black hole.

This is good evidence of a black hole, but does not stop it being something else that we find out about later.

Do you believe in the force of gravity?

I believe something exists that keeps me from floating off planet.

[BeRational]

I believe something exists that keeps me from floating off planet.

Exactly and gravity is the explanation (not fully) that we have.

In fact it's also not a force I have read.

[Bubbles]

The thing is, when you do not know something, just stop there.

Don't insert a god or anything else for that matter. Investigate yes, but make up answers to fill the gaps no.

That's currently where you are going wrong.

IMO where you are going wrong is you can't see how another person can see evidence of God in the order of things.

You don't,  and they do.

It doesn't mean your way is the only way of seeing the order in the universe.

As evidence can go either way, depending on who is looking.


God like black holes and dark matter is a hypothetical answer.

An answer to something we can't know yet.

[Rhiannon]

The thing is, when you do not know something, just stop there.

Don't insert a god or anything else for that matter. Investigate yes, but make up answers to fill the gaps no.

That's currently where you are going wrong.

No, it's not making stuff up. It's feeling something and giving it the name 'God'. Used to do it myself once.

[Stranger]

http://www.newstatesman.com/future-proof/2014/01/stephen-hawking-now-thinks-there-are-no-black-holes

The article is actually a rather sensationalized and not very accurate (or scientifically literate, for example the description of  entanglement as "where two particles are created that are identical on the quantum level") account of a very short and speculative paper about the possible nature of black holes.

There is actually no suggestion that the phenomenon doesn't exist - just a suggestion that it might not have the structure that was previously predicted.

Scientists don't always "only believe in things for which there is sufficient evidence."

Sometimes they believe in something that just explains what they see as resolving a question. ( an invented something)

No one has ever seen a black hole.

Science has lots of hypothetical things that until they learn differently they do believe in.

Clearly, you do not understand how science functions. It is at the heart of the process to be open to revision when new evidence comes to light. Theories are explanations that are supported by considerable body of evidence. Hypotheses are tentative explanations that have not yet been tested. Conjectures are educated guesses.

[Bubbles]

The article is actually a rather sensationalized and not very accurate (or scientifically literate, for example the description of  entanglement as "where two particles are created that are identical on the quantum level") account of a very short and speculative paper about the possible nature of black holes.

There is actually no suggestion that the phenomenon doesn't exist - just a suggestion that it might not have the structure that was previously predicted.

Clearly, you do not understand how science functions. It is at the heart of the process to be open to revision when new evidence comes to light. Theories are explanations that are supported by considerable body of evidence. Hypotheses are tentative explanations that have not yet been tested. Conjectures are educated guesses.

Yes i'm sure you are correct.

But an educated guess, is still a guess.

Not that I'm suggesting any old wild guess will do 

[BeRational]

IMO where you are going wrong is you can't see how another person can see evidence of God in the order of things.

You don't,  and they do.

It doesn't mean your way is the only way of seeing the order in the universe.

As evidence can go either way, depending on who is looking.


God like black holes and dark matter is a hypothetical answer.

An answer to something we can't know yet.

But seeing this god is clearly wrong as they cannot demonstrate it.

That alone should give them pause for thought. People make mistakes, and if it cannot be demonstrated, they should consider they have made a mistake.

To posit a god is always wrong. It answers nothing.

If you think you have seen evidence for god, you are probably not looking at it correctly.

[Stranger]

IMO where you are going wrong is you can't see how another person can see evidence of God in the order of things.

You don't,  and they do.

It doesn't mean your way is the only way of seeing the order in the universe.

No, we all see the order. It is unclear how this order came to be (at it's most basic level). God is just an anthropomorphism of the mystery; calling our ignorance "god" and worshipping it. It doesn't explain order because god would be even more ordered than the universe.

God like black holes and dark matter is a hypothetical answer.

An answer to something we can't know yet.

Nonsense. As has been pointed out "dark matter" is a place holder for whatever causes the gravitational effects we observe. It isn't any sort of answer.

Black holes have supporting evidence.

[Bubbles]

But seeing this god is clearly wrong as they cannot demonstrate it.

That alone should give them pause for thought. People make mistakes, and if it cannot be demonstrated, they should consider they have made a mistake.

To posit a god is always wrong. It answers nothing.

If you think you have seen evidence for god, you are probably not looking at it correctly.

http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/

In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.

It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.

Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.

Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.

Like the picture you can see the evidence  for God or no God in the structure of the universe.

It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.

You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.

I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹

[Brownie]

What Rose said.

[BeRational]

http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/

In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.

It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.

Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.

Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.

Like the picture you can see the evidence  for God or no God in the structure of the universe.

It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.

You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.

I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹

No this is not correct.

To see evidence of a god, you would have to define god.

Can you do that?

I have seen god used as an answer to stuff we do not know. In reality it is not an answer.

If you have evidence for a god, it should stand up to scrutiny. That's we believe that gravity is the best explanation for stuff falling etc.

I could look at stuff falling and say I see this as evidence for pixies pulling things down on invisible strings.

One is science, the other is complete nonsense.

The trick is seeing the difference, something theists sometimes struggle with.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Rose,

http://www.moillusions.com/young-lady-or-old-hag/

In the same way some people see an evidence for God, in the universe.

It's just a way of looking at the same things and people see either the young woman or the hag depending on how they look.

Both can use the same evidence, but see different things, like in the picture above.

Forget religion for a minute, which has other things about it, and step back a bit.

Like the picture you can see the evidence  for God or no God in the structure of the universe.

It's in the eye of the beholder, just like in the picture.

You can see God in the order and structure and the evidence is the same.

I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹

This fails because the analogy fails. In epistemological terms, each interpretation of the image is equally valid because no further data is available to distinguish one from the other. A more apt analogy though would be Fred saying "babies emerge from women's tummies" and Harry saying, "no, babies are delivered by invisible storks".

Each interprets the data according to his ability to do so, but there's a lot more data too that probabilistically causes us to think Fred more likely to be right than Harry. That is, different interpretations do not necessarily have the same epistemological values.

[Bubbles]

What's complete nonsense can be very subjective.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2012/11/gravity-doesnt-exist-is-gravity-an-illusion.html

To many Scientists are disputing too much for it to be answered logically yet.
A lot of scientists are struggling as well.

Who knows, one day we might catch a pixie 

[Stranger]

I can see there are two ways of seeing it, like the illusion 🌹

It's nothing at all like the illusion. "God" explains nothing at all, is unfalsifiable and has no more to support it than any other blind guess, for example, that the universe was created by Kevin - a spotty teenager in a meta-universe who had a new physics set for his birthday...