There Is No God

[Guest Valk0010]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

--puts apologist hat on

 

Without god how can we ground our morals

 

There is testimony to the power of god

 

the first cause has to be theistic, a diest god is self refuting

 

All other gods are contradictory

 

--takes apologist hat off

 

You and your apologist hat are dead wrong !

This is why I said

 

--Takes apologist hat off

 

I was playing debbbuls advocate.

 

So

[Phanta]

I don't think you have given any conclusive scientific evidence to support your view, you have merely made assertions that seem unsupported and unsupportable by science. No one is saying that objective morality falls into the category of science, but then again, no one is saying that science is the only avenue to knowledge either. We can achieve knowledge apart from science. I don't make an argument for the temporary suspension of laws of nature. I don't believe that God works that way. However, I don't believe that the laws of nature are fully understood, nor is it clear that the laws of nature cannot be counteracted by a superior force. For example, gravity is overcome by a superior force all the time, in fact, every time you or anyone else stands up, flies on a plane or even jumps, gravity is overpowered. It is not suspended, merely overpowered. If God is a superior force than nature, then he can overpower the laws of nature as well as we can.

 

I've been pondering Numbers 5:11-31 and am curious as to your view of the "adultery test" process via purely natural means. Thank you for considering my request.

 

Also, regarding gravity, have you read the recent talk in science circles about it not existing? (This isn't really important to the discussion, just something I would interesting to read).

 

Be well,

Phanta

[Guest Justyna]

I have to admit that I have not read this entire thread..so my apologies. Also to be honest I have never really tried to look for evidence that God is real because I always just believed. I did a google search and found this. Not sure if this is a good site or not, but here is what it says. I never read the Baylonian Talmud, so I dont really know the whole deal here.

 

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

 

"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud"

 

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

 

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

[Guest Justyna]

A lot of the evidence I found against Jesus were just scholars who said they believe Jesus was not crucified. But scholars make mistakes all the time. They maybe biased, they may be missing some evidence. You never know. The Babylonia Talmud (though I never read it) sounds credible to me for some reason.

[OnceConvinced]

Why do you all need all this proof? Why cant you have faith and just believe? Is that so hard to ask for?

 

Have you done any study on personality types? In fact I would have thought you having studied psychiatry that you would understand this. Everyone is different. Some require more proof than others. Some are not able to live by faith. Some are. I personally think it's foolish to live by faith, because you could be having faith in any old crap. Things need to be verified and not just taken as fact because someone or some book says so.

[Guest Valk0010]

A lot of the evidence I found against Jesus were just scholars who said they believe Jesus was not crucified. But scholars make mistakes all the time. They maybe biased, they may be missing some evidence. You never know. The Babylonia Talmud (though I never read it) sounds credible to me for some reason.

You could say the same thing about apologists. That is why you got to be skeptical and see what makes most sense. This is a rebuttal of josh mcdowell by jeff lowder, but I think its one great piece of writing on the talmud

 

2. The Talmud contains inconclusive evidence of Jesus. The Talmud [42] is a massive compilation divided into two parts, the Mishna [43] and the Gemara [44]. The Mishna was codified by Rabbi Jehudah ha-Nasi circa 200 CE but was not actually committed to writing until the fifth century; it discusses numerous subjects, including festivals, sacred things, etc. The Gemara was completed in the fifth century and is really a commentary on the Mishna.

 

McDowell cites six lines of evidence for the historical Jesus from the Talmudic writings:

 

(a) The Tol'doth Yeshu. At the outset, note that the Tol'doth Yeshu is not in any sense a part of the Talmud; in ETDAV McDowell erroneously lists the Tol'doth Yeshu as if it were a part of the Talmud. (In fairness to McDowell, I should note that he does not repeat this error in his later book, He Walked Among Us; in that volume, the Tol'doth Yeshu is listed under the heading of "References from the Rabbis."[45]) Anyway, McDowell states that the Tol'doth Yeshu is a reference to Jesus; in that document "Jesus is referred to as `Ben Pandera'".[46] Yet Joseph Klausner--who McDowell relies on heavily in his section on the Talmud--believed the Tol'doth Yeshu "contains no history worth the name."[47] Furthermore, Klausner stated, "The present Hebrew Tol'Doth Yeshu, even in its simplest form, is not earlier than the present Yosippon, i.e. it was not composed before the tenth century. Therefore it cannot possibly possess any historical value nor in any way be used as material for the life of Jesus."[48] Even on McDowell's view, this is more than enough time for legendary development. And in He Walked Among Us, McDowell and Wilson list the Tol'doth Yeshu among the "unreliable [rabbinic] references to Jesus."

 

( B ) The Babylonian Talmud. McDowell next lists the opinion of the Amoraim that Jesus was hanged on the eve of Passover.[49] However, Klausner thinks that the Amoraim traditions "can have no objective historical value (since by the time of the Amoraim there was certainly no clear recollection of Jesus' life and works)."[50] Morris Goldstein states that the passage "cannot be fixed at a definite date within the Tannaitic time-area."[51] The value of this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus is therefore uncertain.

 

© The tradition about Jesus as the son of Pantera. Commenting on the Talmud's references to Jesus as "Ben Pandera (or 'Ben Pantere')" and "Jeshu ben Pandera," McDowell writes, "Many scholars say `pandera' is a play on words, a travesty on the Greek word for virgin `parthenos,' calling him `son of a virgin.'"[52] However, "Jesus is never referred to as `the son of the virgin' in the Christian material preserved from the first century of the Church (30-130), nor in the second century apologists."[53] As Herford argues, this passage "cannot be earlier than the beginning of the fourth century, and is moreover a report of what was said in Babylonia, not Palestine."[54]

 

(d) The Baraitha describing hanging Yeshu on the eve of Passover. McDowell considers "of great historical value" the following Jewish tradition about the hanging of Jesus:

 

On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu (of Nazareth) and the herald went before him for forty days saying (Yeshu of Nazareth) is going forth to be stoned in that he hath practiced sorcery and beguiled and led astray Israel. Let everyone knowing aught in his defence come and plead for him. But they found naught in his defence and hanged him on the eve of Passover.[55]

 

It is unclear whether this passage refers to Jesus. As Goldstein admits, "the possibility of the Jesus named in the Talmud being someone other than Jesus of Nazareth, and identified as such only because of confusion, cannot be entirely dismissed."[56] But even if the passage does refer to the Jesus of the New Testament, according to Goldstein, "it is of no help one way or the other in the question of the historicity of Jesus."[57]

 

Following this Baraitha are some remarks of the Amora 'Ulla, a disciple of R. Yochanan and who lived in Palestine at the end of the third century. McDowell quotes these remarks as follows:

 

'Ulla said: And do you suppose that for [Yeshu of Nazareth] there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him. It is otherwise with Yeshu, for he was near to the civil authority.[58]

 

Both McDowell and Klausner conclude, "The Talmud authorities do not deny that Jesus worked signs and wonders, but they look upon them as acts of sorcery."[59] However, given our ignorance of both the date of these passages as well as the author's sources, we simply can't assume these passages represent independent traditions about Jesus.

 

(e) Talmudic references to the disciples of Jesus. McDowell writes, "Sanhedrin 43a also makes references to the disciples of Jesus."[60] Turning to Joseph Klausner, we read:

 

Immediately after this Baraita comes a second (Sanh. 43a): Jesus had five disciples, Mattai, Naqai, Netser, Buni and Todah.[61]

 

Yet as Klausner notes, "In any case the Baraita itself is lacking in accuracy, for although the names are those of real disciples, they include some who were not disciples of Jesus himself, but disciples of the second generation."[62] In other words, the list of names is simply a list of Christians, not a list of contemporaries of Jesus.[63]

 

Laible has suggested that "the story refers to the prosecution of Christians under Bar Cocheba"[64] because (1) the story occurs in the same passage which describes the death of Jesus and (2) "the key to the understanding of the statements there made about Jesus in the anti-Christian hatred of Bar Cocheba, and more especially of Aqiba, his chief supporter."[65] If that is the case, then the passage can be dated to the second century, which would prevent it from providing independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

 

(f) The reference to such-an-one as a bastard of an adulteress. McDowell, following the lead of Klausner, cites the following passage from the Babylonian Talmud, Yebamoth 4.49a:

 

R. Shimeon ben Azzai said: 'I found a geneaological roll in Jerusalem wherein was recorded, Such-an-one is a bastard of an adulteress.'"[66]

 

McDowell takes this to be a reliable reference to Jesus.[67]

 

However, there are good reasons to doubt that this passage represents an independent tradition about Jesus. First, the passage comes from the Babylonian Talmud, which dates to around the sixth century. Second, the gospel of Matthew begins with the words, "The book of the genealogy of Jesus Christ."[68] This "genealogical roll" or "Book of Pedigrees" may have been influenced by the gospels. Third, this passage fits the pattern of Rabbinical polemic. Thus this reference may not be based upon an independent source. Of course, it's also possible that this passage was based on independent sources. The available evidence does not favor one view over the other; thus, we can't use this passage as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

 

(g) The reference to the 'hire of a harlot.' Finally, McDowell quotes the following passage from the Talmud:

 

He answered, Akiba, you have reminded me! Once I was walking along the upper market (Tosefta reads 'street') of Sepphoris and found one [of the disciples of Jesus of Nazareth] and Jacob of Kefar Sekanya (Tosefta reads 'Sakkanin') was his name. He said to me, It is written in your Law, 'Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, etc.' What was to be done with it--a latrine for the High Priest? But I answered nothing. He said to me, so [Jesus of Nazareth] taught me (Tosefta reads, 'Yeshu ben Pantere'): 'For of the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return'; from the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go. And the saying pleased me, and because of this I was arrested for Minuth. And I transgressed against what is written in the Law; 'Keep thy way far from here'--that is Minuth; 'and come not nigh the door of her house'--that is the civil government.[69]

 

What is crucial to the evidential force of this passage is the words in parentheses; yet McDowell never defends them. He simply quotes Klausner, who in turn quoted an obscure, 19th century manuscript.[70] Nonetheless, most scholars would reject the passage as McDowell has it:

 

To establish the reliability of this passage, Klausner must engage in a contorted argument that includes an appeal to Hegesippus' account of the martyrdom of James--something that would not inspire confidence in many scholars today. Joachim Jeremias weighs the pros and cons of the argument about authenticity and decides in the negative--rightly in my view. The saying is a polemical invention meant to make Jesus look ridiculous.[71]

 

In conclusion, the value of the Talmud as a witness to the historicity of Jesus is at best uncertain. John Meier argues that the Talmud contains "no clear or probable reference to Jesus."[72] And Twelftree states that the Talmud is "of almost no value to the historian in his search for the historical Jesus."[73] Of course, as McDowell and Wilson point out, the Talmud never questions the historicity of Jesus.[74] But that fact cannot itself be used as evidence for the historicity of Jesus, for two reasons. First, as Goldstein points out,

 

we must be careful not to make too much of [the] argument [that had Jews doubted the historicity of Jesus, they would have said so]. It is not conclusive. Can we attribute to ancient peoples our modern concept of myth, or historicity? Furthermore, this manner of logic lends itself to fallacious extension whereby one could attempt to prove that whatever the early Jewish tradition does not specifically mention in contradiction to the Christian tradition must have taken place.[75]

 

Second, the Talmud can only provide independent confirmation of Jesus's existence if it relied on independent sources. Given our ignorance of the sources for the Talmud as well as its late date, it simply can't be used as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus.

 

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html

[Guest Valk0010]

I have to admit that I have not read this entire thread..so my apologies. Also to be honest I have never really tried to look for evidence that God is real because I always just believed. I did a google search and found this. Not sure if this is a good site or not, but here is what it says. I never read the Baylonian Talmud, so I dont really know the whole deal here.

 

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

 

"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud"

 

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

 

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

Also do realize that the talmud is a jewish source, and so, do you expect that the jews would really do more then asking Christians of the area.

 

And if what lowder said is true how do we know that this section comes from that earliest date, you discussed?

[OnceConvinced]

Gods ways are higher than this world's ways.

 

Do I need to bring up this scripture yet again? (there are many that prove God's ways are not higher):

 

Num. 5:12-31 Is giving dirty water to a woman and judging her guilty of being an adultress if she gets sick, a good way of determining a woman's guilt? That's God's way, which interestingly enough is very similar to primitive, ignorant man's ways.

 

Man has moved on from these primitive ways now. If we did thing's God's way, we'd be slaughtering animals and human beings as sacrifices to him. We'd be stoning anyone who picked up sticks on a Saturday... and so many more horrible barbaric things.

 

To solve your cognitive dissonance problem pray that Jesus would help you sort out the lies that you have come to believe to be true and real.

 

Some times I think you're a genuine Christian who is just terribly deluded. But then you post stuff like this that really makes you look like you're trying to spoof being a Christian. If so have you ever heard of Poe's Law?

 

You are asking us to pray to something we see as a lie to help us not believe lies.

[Guest Valk0010]

A lot of the evidence I found against Jesus were just scholars who said they believe Jesus was not crucified. But scholars make mistakes all the time. They maybe biased, they may be missing some evidence. You never know. The Babylonia Talmud (though I never read it) sounds credible to me for some reason.

There is a difference between rising from the dead and being crucified, actually its not rising from the dead that you should say.

[OnceConvinced]

Also to be honest I have never really tried to look for evidence that God is real because I always just believed.

 

what, so you didn't "choose" to believe?

[Guest Valk0010]

Also to be honest I have never really tried to look for evidence that God is real because I always just believed.

 

what, so you didn't "choose" to believe?

How can one truely be searching for truth when that question is not examined at all.

 

And also ohhh I forgot, justnya ignores me now, even after me apologizing to her.

[Guest Justyna]

Valk,

 

I am not ignoring you, and I dont even remember exactly what you did cause a lot of people her called me names so I dont even know. Anyway..I will try to get to your questions tomorrow if I can. There are a lot.

 

But I was thinking about this just now. What about all the Jews that convert to Christianity? I mean if anyone would know about God, it is the Jews. I tried to find statistics as to how many Jews have accepted Jesus but I have not found anything yet. I found Jews for Jesus but I have not the time right now to look through their entire site. I do wan to read the testimonials though.

 

http://www.jewsforjesus.org/

 

I dont think it is a large percent because the Bible does say that their eyes are blinded now so that the gentiles can come to Christ. The one guy that I knew who was Jewish and then later accepted Christ as the Messiah said he felt complete and whole etc. Wow, I was inspired. Made me want to be Jewish

 

I dont know, Jews are hard to convince. If they believe in Jesus, something must be up. Of course some Jews convert to Islam and such, but I dont know. Theres something there.

[Guest Valk0010]

Valk,

 

I am not ignoring you, and I dont even remember exactly what you did cause a lot of people her called me names so I dont even know. Anyway..I will try to get to your questions tomorrow if I can. There are a lot.

 

But I was thinking about this just now. What about all the Jews that convert to Christianity? I mean if anyone would know about God, it is the Jews. I tried to find statistics as to how many Jews have accepted Jesus but I have not found anything yet. I found Jews for Jesus but I have not the time right now to look through their entire site.

 

I dont think it is a large percent because the Bible does say that their eyes are blinded now so that the gentiles can come to Christ. The one guy that I knew who was Jewish and then later accepted Christ as the Messiah said he felt complete and whole etc. Wow, I was inspired. Made me want to be Jewish

 

I dont know, Jews are hard to convince. If they believe in Jesus, something must be up. Of course some Jews convert to Islam and such, but I dont know. Theres something there.

Talking about actually history for a second, the talmud would have been written by regular old jews for regular old jews.

 

People convert to different religions all the time. Infact to be a true christian, would be heresy for a jew, hence why you get jews for jesus and the like.

 

I was listening to something earlier and the guy I listened to, brought up a real good point.

 

Talking about eyewitnesses, the only people we now for absolutely undeniable certainty were around thought Jesus was bogus. Sounds like they had the right idea and smelled a heretical movement and that was it.

 

Wasn't it Maimonides that called Christianity a Greek and pagan heresy of Judaism? Wonder why, most people knew better and though that what Jesus said was BS, for Jewish understanding, regardless of supposed miracles which were somehow rampant then but not now. And also, even if somehow all the miracles that jesus did were some how the real thing and not just judaic shamanism, why would it matter to most people, it was still heresy.

[Sconnor]

I have to admit that I have not read this entire thread..so my apologies. Also to be honest I have never really tried to look for evidence that God is real because I always just believed. I did a google search and found this. Not sure if this is a good site or not, but here is what it says. I never read the Baylonian Talmud, so I dont really know the whole deal here.

 

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

 

"Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud"

 

There are only a few clear references to Jesus in the Babylonian Talmud, a collection of Jewish rabbinical writings compiled between approximately A.D. 70-500. Given this time frame, it is naturally supposed that earlier references to Jesus are more likely to be historically reliable than later ones. In the case of the Talmud, the earliest period of compilation occurred between A.D. 70-200.{20} The most significant reference to Jesus from this period states:

 

On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."{21}

 

As far as the Sanhedrin 43a -- The Talmud was told orally and wasn't written down until 200 years after the supposed crucifixion of Christ.

 

Here's the full text:

"It is taught: On the eve of Passover they hung Yeshu and the crier went forth for forty days beforehand declaring that "[Yeshu] is going to be stoned for practicing witchcraft, for enticing and leading Israel astray. Anyone who knows something to clear him should come forth and exonerate him." But no one had anything exonerating for him and they hung him on the eve of Passover.

Ulla said: Would one think that we should look for exonerating evidence for him? He was an enticer and G-d said (Deuteronomy 13:9) "Show him no pity or compassion, and do not shield him. Yeshu was different because he was close to the government."

 

First it is not "Yeshua" it is "Yeshu" -- small point. But either name is a common name from that time period.

 

The main point is "of Nazareth" wasn't added until 1342AD to the Munich Manuscript of the Talmud and the sentence, "Yeshu was hanged on the eve of the Passover" was added in 1177AD to the Florence Manuscript of the Talmud.

 

Which brings me to my next point. When was Jesus hung, or crucified depending on your definition? was he killed on the Passover or on the eve of the Passover or after Passover? Either way, you have a lot of explaining to do.

 

I would venture to say most Christians say he was executed on Passover but in my studies it would seem the gospels contradict each other. Was he crucified on the eve of Passover like in John 19:14-16,

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified."

 

or was he crucified the day after like in Mark 14:12,

"And the first day of unleavened bread, when they killed the passover, his disciples said unto him, Where wilt thou that we go and prepare that thou mayest eat the passover?"

And Mark 15:25,

"And it was the third hour, and they crucified him."

 

Anyway, contradictions aside, the Gospels didn't say Jesus was stoned or hanged nor did they ever divulge Jesus as being close to the government.

 

The Talmud most certainly can not be used as evidence for the supposed life of Jesus the Christ.

 

Now, what's even more devastating is, there are zero writings from historians from Jesus' time. Not a single scribe, historian or philosopher who lived during the time of Jesus wrote about what surely would have been a monumental piece of history. The historians Seneca 4BC. - 65AD and Pliny the Elder 23? - 79AD never mention Jesus. Philo Judaeus 20BC - 50AD lived in Jerusalem during the supposed life of Jesus. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian wrote volumes on the lives of Jews in and around the surrounding area and nothing is mentioned about Jesus the Christ. Go figure.

 

All the other historians you could mention -- Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger -- wrote, well after the fact. Josephus was the earliest born, about seven to ten years after Jesus supposedly died and wrote his books 40-50 years later, the rest were born in the 50's, 60's, and 70's AD and all their writings were done well over a hundred years after Jesus' supposed death. What this means is, the historians you could site were around when other Christians talked about the stories of Christ. They were not around when Jesus was supposedly alive. Their writings are based on hearsay. They do not in any way confirm the Biblical accounts or the historicity of Jesus.

 

There is NO extra-biblical objective evidence of your god-man existing.

 

Get over it. Besides if there was objective evidence for your god-man existing you wouldn't need your deplorable method of acquiring and processing information: FAITH.

 

--S.

[Mostly Harmless]

There is no God. Prove me wrong

 

There is no "dark matter." Prove me wrong.

Dark matter is currently the only explanation to why our galaxy (and other galaxies) have a huge amount more mass than is visible. It's a conclusion based on an observation and missing matter in the equations. The mass is there, but we can't see it, hence dark matter. It must exist, or we have to scratch everything we know about physics. So basically, dark matter is just as much evident to exist as radiation, oxygen, computer software, and 1 lb of apples.

 

I can no more prove you wrong than you can prove me wrong. We both have separate equations to how the universe was made. Your equation (and I am making the assumption that you are an atheist and believe whatever popular theory scientists are putting forth) requires a tremendous amount of material that has never been observed directly by human senses.

It has been observed by the fact of the rotation of the fringe stars in our galaxy and our current knowledge about gravity and mass. Dark matter is not a guess. It's the only thing currently that can explain the phenomenon.

 

My equation relies on an all-powerful being who has been reportedly observed by human senses, but I must admit not by mine. We are both walking by faith.

The cool part with dark matter is that you actually could take a couple of classes in math, physics, and astronomy, and do the calculations yourself and come to the realizations that there are a huge amount of additional mass that we can't observe. What do we want to call it? Unobservable additional mass? Or dark matter? It's all the same. But the key is, you can, I can, Bob can, and Ken can. However, having the experience of God through our human senses requires some unexplainable decision from a supernatural being and his finicky ideas of pre-determinism and free-will. We can't study our way, or achieve the knowledge, individually and from our own wish to do so, about God, only God can choose for us to know. To know about dark matter, it only takes your will to learn.

 

Basically, what I'm saying is that there is evidence for dark matter, and that this evidence is not just some haphazardly thrown together potpourri of random thoughts, hopes, and dreams, but currently the only explanation to the observations. In other words, dark matter is observed, not directly, but the effects of it.

 

So what effects of God can we observe, test, measure, calculate, and study? Is God testable?

 

And also, if you had compared to super-strings instead, I might have agreed on your comparison.

 

Sorry for the delay. I tried playing with the quote thing (with no success) to specify points, and then I just got busy and failed to get back.

 

Just because equations say something should exist does not mean that you have scientific proof. I am not denying the observations, but for all you know the added mass needed could be flying monkeys or even God. Considering that there should be something like 5 times more dark matter than matter we can observe, the fact that we can't detect it is very interesting.

 

Of course, if someone does claim that they have found dark matter, that does not change my stance that there is a Creator. That is the beauty of blind faith.

[Sconnor]

Just because equations say something should exist does not mean that you have scientific proof. I am not denying the observations, but for all you know the added mass needed could be flying monkeys or even God. Considering that there should be something like 5 times more dark matter than matter we can observe, the fact that we can't detect it is very interesting.

 

Of course, if someone does claim that they have found dark matter, that does not change my stance that there is a Creator.

 

The fact that we can't detect this creator god of yours is very interesting.

 

That is the beauty of blind faith.

 

Yeah -- like the blind faith used by terrorist who flew planes into the world trade center.

 

Funny how this whole faith thing works out – it lets the religionist believe in a whole host of absurd, unverified beliefs.

 

Faith -- as it would seem -- is an entirely unreliable method of acquiring and processing information.

 

--S.

[Xerces]

 

There is no "dark matter." Prove me wrong.

 

 

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/through-the-wormhole-beyond-the-darkness/

 

Thanks for playing.

[Ouroboros]

Just because equations say something should exist does not mean that you have scientific proof.

Dark matter is measurable because something that is dark and has mass is affecting the gravity of our galaxy. It's evidence enough.

 

It's like hearing a frog and see a fly being captured, but you just don't see the frog. You can assume that there is a frog (of some kind) that captured the fly.

 

I am not denying the observations, but for all you know the added mass needed could be flying monkeys or even God.

That's redundant. The simplest explanation is that something dark or invisible with mass is causing it.

 

But of course, it could be pixies too, but that would be harder to prove.

 

Considering that there should be something like 5 times more dark matter than matter we can observe, the fact that we can't detect it is very interesting.

I'm not sure why that makes you so interested. We can detect it since there is something dark mass that affects the galaxy. If you don't like the term dark matter, then let's call it something else, for instance black mass, or invisible gravity. The names illustrate the exact same thing, something is pulling the galaxy as if there were more mass than we can see. It's not a speculation, it's the observable effect.

 

So dark matter is measurable and detectable. But of course, you're right that we can't detect it in our backyard or through other methods, and that is yet to be explained or figured out, but it doesn't remove the fact that Heavy Invisible Pixies are affecting the galaxy. Something is affecting it. You can't get away from that. And "dark matter" is just a label, title, or reference to that thing, whatever it is. Call it Xyz if you feel better about it. Or call it God if that makes you happy. But it does exist, and currently they only know a few things about it. When they know more, they might rename it. If they discover it's caused by Heavy Invisible Pixies, well, then it will be renamed to that.

 

Of course, if someone does claim that they have found dark matter, that does not change my stance that there is a Creator. That is the beauty of blind faith.

Exactly. You are blind and can't change your mind when science or reality prove you wrong. Not even if God would come down and tell you, would you change, because you are blind.