Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am far from an expert on the matter (sorry), but 'dark matter' is known due to its "material interactions" (gravitational effects) upon surrounding matter (sorry again), is it not?
I am far from an expert on the matter (sorry), but 'dark matter' is known due to its "material interactions" (gravitational effects) upon surrounding matter (sorry again), is it not?
Dark matter is known because it creates gravity and gravitational lensing of background radiation. Otherwise, it is invisible, can pass through other matter and is undetectable.
So by definition, it is a phenomena not caused by material interaction. It is NOT "material interaction, if by that you mean two material objects interacting together. It is a non-material agent causing a phenomena that can interact with the material world. That is pretty much all that is known about it.
There is about 4X more dark matter in the universe than normal matter. So the vast majority of the "stuff" in the universe isn't ordinary matter.
Dark matter is known because it creates gravity and gravitational lensing of background radiation. Otherwise, it is invisible, can pass through other matter and is undetectable.
So by definition, it is a phenomena not caused by material interaction. It is NOT "material interaction, if by that you mean two material objects interacting together. It is a non-material agent causing a phenomena that can interact with the material world. That is pretty much all that is known about it.
There is about 4X more dark matter in the universe than normal matter. So the vast majority of the "stuff" in the universe isn't ordinary matter.
I fail to see how the fact we haven't solved the puzzle of a cosmological phenomenon infers there may be a god.
It has only been fairly recently we have discovered quarks and quantum physics etc. Eventually humans will develop tools to conquer the cosmos as well.
I absolutely have limited understanding about a lot of science but I don't see any god at work, unless it's an architect like The Matrix.
I fail to see how the fact we haven't solved the puzzle of a cosmological phenomenon infers there may be a god.
It has only been fairly recently we have discovered quarks and quantum physics etc. Eventually humans will develop tools to conquer the cosmos as well.
I absolutely have limited understanding about a lot of science but I don't see any god at work, unless it's an architect like The Matrix.
It doesn't mean there is a god.
It only means we can't exclude god solely on materialist grounds.
Because according to the best scientific understanding, only about 1/4 of the universe operates by materialist mechanisms.
If the philosophy of materialism were true, God by definition could not be real. But since the material philosophy is not true that argument is not effective.
It only means we can't exclude god solely on materialist grounds.
Because according to the best scientific understanding, only about 1/4 of the universe operates by materialist mechanisms.
If the philosophy of materialism were true, God by definition could not be real. But since the material philosophy is not true that argument is not effective.
So you are saying because dark matter is invisible and not a material that can be tested, there is a possibility of a god that resembles this construct?
I am not trying to be obtuse, I am trying to understand your reasoning.
So you are saying because dark matter is invisible and not a material that can be tested, there is a possibility of a god that resembles this construct?
I am not trying to be obtuse, I am trying to understand your reasoning.
That is close to what I am saying.
I am a formerly strong atheist, who absolutely discounted even the possibility of a god. This is because the concept of a supernatural being would violate a central tenent of materialism - that all phenomena are the result of material interactions.
But now we see that it is not only possible to violate that central tenent of materialsim, we've found that it is violated more often then it is adhered to!
Accordingly, materialism can not positively exclude the possibility of the existence of the supernatural. Whether or not that is limited to only the dark matter, or other elements, I don't know. All I know is that the real world is not limited to the material world, as is demonstrated by the discovery of Dark matter.
So I am forced, against my desire, to move from an atheist position to an agnostic position, by my definitions of those words. Others may still consider me an atheist, depending on how they define the terms.
I understand your position. I will remain with my atheism because as I have seen science unfold and become more apparent, along with the great strides we have made in being able to test and observe the scientific world, I truly believe we will discover even more evidence to refute the possibility of a 'god' as we define it.
Everything we as yet do not know, will one day fit into the natural world and not a supernatural world.
I understand your position. I will remain with my atheism because as I have seen science unfold and become more apparent, along with the great strides we have made in being able to test and observe the scientific world, I truly believe we will discover even more evidence to refute the possibility of a 'god' as we define it.
Everything we as yet do not know, will one day fit into the natural world and not a supernatural world.
While I believe we will find out more about the way Dark Matter operates, I am reluctant to describe that as the "natural world"
If we were to say "the only thing that exists is the natural world, not the supernatural world", then the definition of what the natural world is must not change. Otherwise, it becomes an empty, vacuous statement.
For that statement to have meaning, it must be falsifiable. It must contain a set of factors that are claimed to exist, and a set of factors that are claimed not to exist. When we find a set of factors claimed not to exist, we must admit that the theory has been falsified. We can't keep changing the definition of natural to include new discoveries that don't fit the old model, and then claim the old model was correct.
It seems to me that what you are describing as natural is just another word for "real". When you discover something new is real, you lump it with the other real stuff you know.
But that makes our naturalism statement empty. All you are saying is "I believe the only things that exist are the things that are real." Well of course, everyone would agree with that. But what exactly are you claiming is UNreal?
It seems to me that what you are describing as natural is just another word for "real". When you discover something new is real, you lump it with the other real stuff you know.
But that makes our naturalism statement empty. All you are saying is "I believe the only things that exist are the things that are real." Well of course, everyone would agree with that. But what exactly are you claiming is UNreal?
The definition of natural and supernatural are not completely well defined and therefore lead to some misunderstandings. What I am trying to say our understanding of the cosmos will one day be within the confines of the laws of nature.
Our definitions of god are obviously different as well, because you are now stating we cannot rule out the possibility of a god based on your understanding of dark matter and materialism, yet ignoring the consequence of that possibility of a god...religion.
And you are using this extremely complex cosmological argument to recant your atheism, which to me, is far too early on in the show. We don't fully understand the physics of it yet. Maybe once scientists figure it all out you can then positively affirm your new agnostic stance.
Either way, it's your belief system, it really doesn't matter to anyone else except you. And as I have stated previously, I am not in any way, shape or form, a scientist. My science knowledge is probably worse than a 12 year old
I am a formerly strong atheist, who absolutely discounted even the possibility of a god. This is because the concept of a supernatural being would violate a central tenent of materialism - that all phenomena are the result of material interactions.
But now we see that it is not only possible to violate that central tenent of materialsim, we've found that it is violated more often then it is adhered to!
Accordingly, materialism can not positively exclude the possibility of the existence of the supernatural. Whether or not that is limited to only the dark matter, or other elements, I don't know. All I know is that the real world is not limited to the material world, as is demonstrated by the discovery of Dark matter.
So I am forced, against my desire, to move from an atheist position to an agnostic position, by my definitions of those words. Others may still consider me an atheist, depending on how they define the terms.
Atheism/=Materialism
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
