beecee

Once again, science is not out to prove anything. It creates models that match our observations and makes valid predictions. Science is always looking for answers and models that can explain what we see. As I have mentioned to you many times now [and as per your modus operandi, you ignore] a few hundred years ago, we did not have explanations as to what powers the Sun, where the elements came from, how life appeared and evolved and many other aspects...Are you saying science should never have looked into or bothered with those regions? Any need for any higher power, in those regions mentioned are long gone. Or do you believe we should have remained ignorant? The BB, gravitational collapse, nucleosynthesis, abiogenesis and evolution. See above.

Now why would anyone in their right mind think that? Science gives an evidence based argument against any and all supernatural and paranormal nonsense, and when and if there are gaps in that knowledge, will admit that it does not know, rather then dreaming up some mythical entity or higher power to put some faith in, for solace, peace of mind and false hope.

As Phil has just said, science isn't about your truth or reality or proof.....science gives us the best explanation at any particular time. In relation to your statement, what you seem to be saying is that one has the right to believe anything his or her mind can dream up. Yes, that's the definition of faith and why it can be described as a delusion.

And it doesn't disprove fairies at the bottom of my garden either, or my magical spaghetti monster, as I just inferred which you would have noticed if you were paying attention.

Not really...Both actually see that the predominance of evidence supports the BB and an expanding universe, [which funnily enough then invalidates their bible/koran] but obviously then revert again to myth/delusions/faith where science as yet remains ignorant of the answer......Or the usual fall back, "god of the gaps/higher power" mentality which in their minds gives them that warm inner glow and hopeful scenario. 15 pages so far and as yet you have not offered anything that support your trust in faith. Santa Claus? Fairies at the bottom of the garden? It's unscientific and as likley as fairies at the bottom of your garden.

Noted....All analogies have their limitations.

The observational evidence has discredited you. Space expands due to momentum from the BB: That spacetime expansion is nullified by gravity within galactic groups and walls....In empty space with little or no gravity, nothing stops space expanding due to the BB momentum: Let's use the old balloon analogy with two or more dots painted on the surface...blow the balloon up, the skin [spacetime] expands and the dots [galaxies] appear to move apart....or the raisin loaf in an oven..... As the heat is applied, the dough [spacetime] expands...the raisins [galaxies] move apart. But the increasing separation between the dots/raisins/galaxies is not a Doppler effect [the dots/raisins/galaxies] actually moving apart themselves...It is a cosmological effect due to the balloon skin/dough/spacetime expanding. The BB is a theory of the evolution OF space and time [ as we know them] from a hot dense state...Everything, all of spacetime was packed to within the volume of an atomic nucleus...From that one can envisage that the BB happened everywhere at the same time. It did not occur IN spacetime. The only center that is valid in cosmology is the center of one's observable universe.

So you understand why expanding space is not moving around galaxies now?

https://phys.org/news/2018-06-einstein-galaxy.html Einstein proved right in another galaxy June 21, 2018, University of Portsmouth: An international team of astronomers have made the most precise test of gravity outside our own solar system. By combining data taken with NASA's Hubble Space Telescope and the European Southern Observatory's Very Large Telescope, their results show that gravity in this galaxy behaves as predicted by Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity, confirming the theory's validity on galactic scales. In 1915 Albert Einstein proposed his general theory of relativity (GR) to explain how gravity works. Since then GR has passed a series of high precision tests within the solar system, but there have been no precise tests of GR on large astronomical scales. It has been known since 1929 that the Universe is expanding, but in 1998 two teams of astronomers showed that the Universe is expanding faster now than it was in the past. This surprising discovery—which won the Nobel Prize in 2011—cannot be explained unless the Universe is mostly made of an exotic component called dark energy. However, this interpretation relies on GR being the correct theory of gravity on cosmological scales. Testing the long distance properties of gravity is important to validate our cosmological model. Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2018-06-einstein-galaxy.html#jCp <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6395/1342 A precise extragalactic test of General Relativity: Testing General Relativity on galaxy scales Einstein's theory of gravity, General Relativity (GR), has been tested precisely within the Solar System. However, it has been difficult to test GR on the scale of an individual galaxy. Collett et al. exploited a nearby gravitational lens system, in which light from a distant galaxy (the source) is bent by a foreground galaxy (the lens). Mass distribution in the lens was compared with the curvature of space-time around the lens, independently determined from the distorted image of the source. The result supports GR and eliminates some alternative theories of gravity. Abstract Einstein’s theory of gravity, General Relativity, has been precisely tested on Solar System scales, but the long-range nature of gravity is still poorly constrained. The nearby strong gravitational lens ESO 325-G004 provides a laboratory to probe the weak-field regime of gravity and measure the spatial curvature generated per unit mass, γ. By reconstructing the observed light profile of the lensed arcs and the observed spatially resolved stellar kinematics with a single self-consistent model, we conclude that γ = 0.97 ± 0.09 at 68% confidence. Our result is consistent with the prediction of 1 from General Relativity and provides a strong extragalactic constraint on the weak-field metric of gravity.

Agreed...That's exampled by the fact that it was a Belgian Jesuit priest who first proposed the BB, and also the fact that the Catholic church recognise the BB along with the theory of the Evolution of life. But of course from those points the road diverges with science still looking for answers based on the scientific methodology and empirical evidence.

Let me put it as best as I can in my best layman's style: The discovery of the universe expanding was the first observational clue/evidence that led to the BB theory. [All one needs to do is mentally reverse that expansion] Since then of course other observational data has been forthcoming supporting the BB model overwhelmingly, the final nail in the coffin for alternative models being the discovery of the CMBR. What causes spacetime to expand? The momentum itself from the BB is the answer to that, remembering of course that the BB was itself the evolution of space and time, and as counter intuitivley as it may sound, is expanding into nothing. The DE component was observed when it was found that this expansion of the universe/spacetime was accelerating...Our best guess to what this DE is, is simply a property of spacetime itself. Now with regards to your apparent problem re why the galaxies are moving with the spacetime expansion, as others have informed you, it is actually the space between galactic structures and walls that is expanding: The space between stellar systems and galactic groups such as the one the Milky Way belongs to, is "decoupled" or "overcome" by the gravity of those galaxies and galactic groups.......similarly on smaller scales the planets stars and even us are held together by the strong and weak nuclear forces and EMF. The observed expansion as discovered by Edwin Hubble was illustrated in the redshift of light from distant galaxies: This has been determined as a cosmological redshift as distinct from Doppler and gravitational redshifts which also play a part. Andromeda [M31] is blueshifted due to the effects of gravity overcoming the natural spacetime expansion. Please though stay away from silly ridiculous conspiracy nonsense or invalid attempts to deride the mainstream model by those pushing other barrows. Mainstream science exists because it aligns with the scientific methodology and the direction where the abundance of evidence takes us. As explained, it is the space between galaxies that is expanding. The BB theory/model along with other lines of evidence is built on that.

I'm sure we all know the definition of faith. A belief in something without any evidence. I find that hard to justify as is any justification of any God. I see nothing more then a position of incalcitrance, and obtuseness, and at the same time find it weird at best that you could say his argument was simply dismissed after 13 or so pages. Any faith in any particular brand of higher power is not supported by evidence. All beleifs in such unsupported concepts are inevitable a result of braiwashing and or a fear of the unknown and a desire for comfort and solace against the inevitable outcome as is evidenced by science. . No one is dismissing faith: Obviously many people have it and the reasons they have it have just been given. What is dismissed is the unsupported claim that any higher power exists and the claim that evidence exists for this higher power, which after 13 pages I'm still waiting for. People are mostly a product of their environment and socioeconomic conditions. Take a new born baby from some primitive tribe in the deepest Amazon, or New Guinea, and swap it with a new born baby from some first world industrialised country and review their "qualities" after 30 years or so. What I question is the bigotry that some seem to portray, and their utter failure in being able to see the inferences in the previous paragraph. Yes, basically all people are the same.

I'm being dismissive because much of what you are saying makes little sense, and is simply an effort by you to reword some aspect, in the hope that no one sees your not so deft sidestep of the issue at hand. Let me respond again...Your faith, by definition is a belief in a supernatural/paranormal concept, that is unscientific. As science has continued to explain the universe around us scientifically, it has gradually pushed any reason for any such unscientific belief/faith/delusion into near oblivion. In actual fact you are still applying your faith/belief/delusion in a "god of the gaps" scenario, albeit in different words [ eg: a higher power] simply because science does not know everything. Let me remind you that many people still put their faith/belief/delusion in the literal meaning of the bible, yet the Catholic church now recognise the theory of evolution and the BB. The counter arguments put against your intransigent position now covers around 12 pages.. Nothing I or anyone else would say does matter. That has been your position since you started posting your questionable qualities on this form. But I'm a stubborn old bastard so let me spell it out for you....The link explains that what you count as reasoning, is contaminated by your incalcitrant position, due to your beliefs and confirmation bias, probably due to a childhood of brainwashing, the desire for comfort and solace or a combination of both. Again, I can understand that position and the reasons for it, what I fail to understand is why you chose to come to a science forum and your crusade of questionable qualities? Is this simply to gain some reassurance in your faith/belief system, and its sandy foundations?

No not ignored...Read and judged them on their logical worth which is zero. Silly repeated, unsupported, unscientific rhetoric on what you term as faith/belief in a "higher power" which you have been rather careful to not disclose the nature of, so as not to draw more logical dismissivness by most that require some evidence. .......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Evolution_of_reason Evolution of reason: " A species could benefit greatly from better abilities to reason about, predict and understand the world. French social and cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier argue that there could have been other forces driving the evolution of reason. They point out that reasoning is very difficult for humans to do effectively, and that it is hard for individuals to doubt their own beliefs (confirmation bias). Reasoning is most effective when it is done as a collective – as demonstrated by the success of projects like science.They suggest that there are not just individual, but group selection pressures at play. Any group that managed to find ways of reasoning effectively would reap benefits for all its members, increasing their fitness. This could also help explain why humans, according to Sperber, are not optimized to reason effectively alone. Their argumentative theory of reasoning claims that reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with the search for the truth."

All you have done is offer your boring repeated rhetoric on your faith/belief/delusions, and the associated crusade you seem to be on. Again I once believed and had faith in Santa Claus before I grew up.

Actually faith/belief/delusions in any unscientific, unevidenced "higher power" are exactly the same thing despite your continued post after past after post denial and side-stepping, and actually about as useful as tits on a bull.

Great!!! At last, some progress. In other words just as realistic as pink unicorns and/or magical spaghetti monsters. I had faith in Santa Claus when I was a kid. Of course they can! and will remain equated until you show me evidence that your faith is not a delusion...which as you have said twice you cannot do. I was raised on this path of faith/delusions, until I reached adulthood and saw the awesome wonder of science, the scientific method, and how it explained without any need for mythical stories.

The belief in any higher power is unscientific and simply based on faith with no evidence, as is common in any variety of this higher power. It is a faulty belief based on a fanatical faith/belief/delusion in something that we have no evidence for. Our existence and the existence of any life is scientifically answered by the only scientific answer available...Universal Abiogenesis. Delusional beliefs actually have no relevance in any aspect of knowledge.

Obviously your faith in this "higher power" and as non specific as you purposely make it, is delusional as both aligning with the fact that zero evidence exists supporting such concept/s. But that's your perogative. But please tell me, what inconsistencies in what you believe and try and advertise on this forum, along of course with your other apparent questionable qualities like racism that you have started threads on, drives you to arrogantly advertise them and crusade for them, on a science forum no less, that has over the last century or so, further pushed your need and faith in any higher power, into near oblivion? I really don't expect you to answer that question, as you have failed to answer it at least twice previously. In the meantime..... https://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/books/chapters/1022-1st-dawk.html Some people have views of God that are so broad and flexible that it is inevitable that they will find God wherever they look for him. One hears it said that 'God is the ultimate' or 'God is our better nature' or 'God is the universe.' Of course, like any other word, the word 'God' can be given any meaning we like. If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal. Weinberg is surely right that, if the word God is not to become completely useless, it should be used in the way people have generally understood it: to denote a supernatural creator that is 'appropriate for us to worship'. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please note that "God" can of course be replaced with your "higher power"claim, and the Faith/delusion you have in him/her/it. Again of course both delusions and faith are without evidence. Is that your own specific made up on the spur of the moment definition? We have no evidence for any higher power, which makes it a delusional belief based only on the faith of that individual. Those are the facts, as opposed to your made up on the spur of the moment definition of delusion/faith.

Thanks NNY

As analogous to magical spaghetti monsters, or fairies at the bottom of your garden if you have one. Obviously we have no evidence to any of those three myths. Here's some more accepted definitions: https://www.google.com.au/search?ei=u9MlW4q0JIXM0gTW9pvYDA&q=faith+&oq=faith+&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i131i67k1j0i67k1j0i131i67k1j0l2j0i67k1j0l2j0i131k1j0.4753.4753.0.5494.1.1.0.0.0.0.184.184.0j1.1.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.1.183....0.xEyHEJPU3eA FAITH: complete trust or confidence in someone or something. . strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< https://www.google.com.au/search?q=delusions&oq=delusions&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.5743j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 delusion an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder. the action of deluding or the state of being deluded. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So we can see the similarities in that both lack the need for evidence, reason or logic. <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Good people will do good things, and bad people will do bad things. But for good people to do bad things – that takes religion." Steven Weinberg, Nobel laureate Religion of course takes faith or a belief in something without evidence.

It most certainly puts your "claimed" legitimate faith based reasoning as being faulty at best. Any faith is divorced from reasoning, as evidenced by your own faulty reasoning. Any plausibility of faith in any higher power, defies reasoning, science and the scientific methodology. http://www.dorjeshugden.com/forum/index.php?topic=2260.0 definition of faith: A feeling, conviction, or belief that something is true or real, without having evidence. definition of delusion: A belief that is resistant to confrontation with actual facts.

Sure you do....remember telling lies makes little baby Jesus cry... you have said many many times, or words to the same effect, ......https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reason#Evolution_of_reason Evolution of reason: " A species could benefit greatly from better abilities to reason about, predict and understand the world. French social and cognitive scientists Dan Sperber and Hugo Mercier argue that there could have been other forces driving the evolution of reason. They point out that reasoning is very difficult for humans to do effectively, and that it is hard for individuals to doubt their own beliefs (confirmation bias). Reasoning is most effective when it is done as a collective – as demonstrated by the success of projects like science.They suggest that there are not just individual, but group selection pressures at play. Any group that managed to find ways of reasoning effectively would reap benefits for all its members, increasing their fitness. This could also help explain why humans, according to Sperber, are not optimized to reason effectively alone. Their argumentative theory of reasoning claims that reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with the search for the truth." :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: So much for your faith based reasoning.

Actually all your responses can be summed up in nothing more then repeated rhetoric, ignoring of what others are trying to explain to you, the usual obtuseness and stubborn arrogance. Again care to comment on my link?

Agreed, so I take it you will give yourself a rap over the knuckles for raising it? I was just responding to your mentioning of it. Any response to the above?