When can we conclude that dark matter does not exist?

The problem is that three decades of searching have not been able to produce any direct detection of dark matter particles.

Well they haven’t detected a particle yet, but they have other, very reliable, but more indirect evidence it does exist. THAT evidence does not go away just because they have not added new evidence in the form of detecting a particle.

From the wiki.

Although dark matter has not been directly observed, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects such as the motions of visible matter, gravitational lensing, its influence on the universe’s large-scale structure, and its effects in the cosmic microwave background.

Using the same logic evident here, I have a question:

Can we conclude that God does not exist?

There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.

Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.

Why is that? What is the logical difference here?

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Using the same logic evident here, I have a question:

Can we conclude that God does not exist?

There’s a lot of indirect evidence that an intelligent force could be behind at least much of what we see and detect, and many people have experienced unexplained occurrences in their lives that are difficult to explain. Other than our minds, we don’t have detectors that can find spiritual particles out there, just the same that no one has developed a way to detect dark matter.

Yet, with the logical comparisons, it seems many people have an easier time accepting the existence of dark matter than the existence of God.

Why is that? What is the logical difference here?

This is why it’s faith. The evidence for the existence of dark matter depends upon precise mathematical measurements of the effects of gravity.

The “indirect evidence” for God is not “evidence.” It’s something in the world people of faith seize upon and see a certain way. It is then a foundation of faith.

And besides, again, there’s no LACK of evidence for dark matter. There’s a ton of evidence for dark matter. We just can’t detect the particle it is made of. But there’s a reason for that. The reason dark matter is “dark” in the first place is because it does not interact with electro-magnetic fields, just with gravity. As a result it cannot be seen or touched, since both of those things depend upon the workings of electro-magnetic fields.

As for the idea, in another post, that “liberals” are the source of the denial of this or that religious beliefs, we have again an example of how damaging simple partisanship can be. It deals in ludicrously broad generalizations. There are after all religious liberals and leftists, just as there are agnostic or atheistic conservatives. Sweeping generalizations like that are just simply completely ineffectual and usually based on mammoth distortions of the real world.

Adding a bit more:

What I discovered at age nine, and then refined a great deal as I grew older, is that “god” is not really the variable. We are. So rather than trying to solve for “X” as “god,” we need to look at ourselves and figure that out.

As in, since it’s the case that visions and versions of “god” have almost zero consistency through time, and change radically depending upon where and when we’re born, and all the various socialization and indoctrination we go through . . . . that also tells me there can’t be some timeless, deathless thing out there for us to discover, especially not one who demands obedience and worship. Especially if that timeless, deathless being is all-powerful and all-knowing. No such being would ever allow such a chaos of belief, such a babel of perceptions regarding his or her divinity. He, she or it would have made themselves known to us from the beginning, and it wouldn’t have mattered if we were from the Middle East, Africa, Europe, Asia, Polynesia, the Americas, etc. etc. . . . We would have unity at least about that.

Which leads me to the mystics, whom I’ve studied in the past as well. Ironically, with exceptions, they do find a kind of unity across time and space. Mystics from most of the major religions started out accepting the earthly divisions between East and West, North and South, that we’re generally taught. But they almost always ended up casting all of that aside once they reached their journey’s end. With few exceptions, their ultimate revelation was that “all is one” and that there is no “one true god.”

NewMexicoRam wrote:

I appreciate the comments above.

For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.

I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.

So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?

Infinite regress, etc. etc.

Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.

;>)

Happy New Year, NMR.

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

As for the idea, in another post, that “liberals” are the source of the denial of this or that religious beliefs, we have again an example of how damaging simple partisanship can be. It deals in ludicrously broad generalizations. There are after all religious liberals and leftists, just as there are agnostic or atheistic conservatives. Sweeping generalizations like that are just simply completely ineffectual and usually based on mammoth distortions of the real world.

Sure we all know how treasured the religious democrats are within the democrat party. Religious liberals even more so given the wikileaks email in which the Hildabeast campaign was conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church. Such a pious bunch!

I know this is hopeless. But, nowhere in any of the leaked emails is there even a whiff of what you describe. “Conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church”? Via an email exchange by two people? Jennifer Palmieri, a practicing Catholic, and John Halpin had what they thought was a private conversation about the reasons why some conservatives choose Catholicism over Protestant Evangelical churches. Two people. Private conversation. The comments were mild beyond belief, and you think it’s a “conspiracy”?

Oh, and Podesta is a practicing Catholic, too. Though he wasn’t a part of the exchange.

Can you please demonstrate how their words equal a conspiracy against the Roman Catholic church? Their exact words. Not right-wing, freak-out, Op-Ed translations of their words. Their exact words, in context, please.

The solar system is too small. You have to look at the effects of orbital velocities of stars in galaxies to see an effect. There isn’t enough mass to provide the necessary gravity to hold the outer stars in orbit. The outer stars are traveling too fast. Without extra mass or something else they should fly out of the galaxy. This is a short crude description.

He says even MOND needs some dark matter.

• This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by Agamemnon.

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

I appreciate the comments above.

For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.

I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.

So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?

Infinite regress, etc. etc.

Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.

;>)

Happy New Year, NMR.

If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”

And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.

Billy_T wrote:

bnw wrote:

zn wrote:

As for the idea, in another post, that “liberals” are the source of the denial of this or that religious beliefs, we have again an example of how damaging simple partisanship can be. It deals in ludicrously broad generalizations. There are after all religious liberals and leftists, just as there are agnostic or atheistic conservatives. Sweeping generalizations like that are just simply completely ineffectual and usually based on mammoth distortions of the real world.

Sure we all know how treasured the religious democrats are within the democrat party. Religious liberals even more so given the wikileaks email in which the Hildabeast campaign was conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church. Such a pious bunch!

I know this is hopeless. But, nowhere in any of the leaked emails is there even a whiff of what you describe. “Conspiring to foment strife in the Roman Catholic church”? Via an email exchange by two people? Jennifer Palmieri, a practicing Catholic, and John Halpin had what they thought was a private conversation about the reasons why some conservatives choose Catholicism over Protestant Evangelical churches. Two people. Private conversation. The comments were mild beyond belief, and you think it’s a “conspiracy”?

Oh, and Podesta is a practicing Catholic, too. Though he wasn’t a part of the exchange.

Can you please demonstrate how their words equal a conspiracy against the Roman Catholic church? Their exact words. Not right-wing, freak-out, Op-Ed translations of their words. Their exact words, in context, please.

Heres an article from the Catholic News Service-

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/leaked-emails-show-hostility-to-catholic-church-some-say.cfm

Podesta admits conspiracy and owns it. From the CNS article-

Other emails leaked by WikiLeaks included an 2012 email to Podesta from Sandy Newman, president of Voices for Progress. “This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage, even though 98 percent of Catholic women, and their conjugal partners, have used contraception, has me thinking,” said Newman. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a Middle Ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.
“Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen?” he asked in a Feb. 10, 2012, email.
In response to Newman’s question, Podesta tells him: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

That is a conspiracy, def. conspiracy- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

bnw wrote:

Heres an article from the Catholic News Service-

http://www.catholicnews.com/services/englishnews/2016/leaked-emails-show-hostility-to-catholic-church-some-say.cfm

Podesta admits conspiracy and owns it. From the CNS article-

Other emails leaked by WikiLeaks included an 2012 email to Podesta from Sandy Newman, president of Voices for Progress. “This whole controversy with the bishops opposing contraceptive coverage, even though 98 percent of Catholic women, and their conjugal partners, have used contraception, has me thinking,” said Newman. “There needs to be a Catholic Spring, in which Catholics themselves demand the end of a Middle Ages dictatorship and the beginning of a little democracy and respect for gender equality in the Catholic Church.
“Is contraceptive coverage an issue around which that could happen?” he asked in a Feb. 10, 2012, email.
In response to Newman’s question, Podesta tells him: “We created Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good to organize for a moment like this. But I think it lacks the leadership to do so now. Likewise Catholics United. Like most Spring movements, I think this one will have to be bottom up.”

That is a conspiracy, def. conspiracy- any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result.

________

BNW, here’s the definition of conspiracy:

con·spir·a·cy
kənˈspirəsē/
noun
noun: conspiracy; plural noun: conspiracies

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.
“a conspiracy to destroy the government”
synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informalracket
“a conspiracy to manipulate the results”
the action of plotting or conspiring.
“they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice”
synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason
“conspiracy to commit murder”

What you’ve described isn’t in the same universe as “conspiracy.” You’ve simply described political opposition to reactionary Catholic doctrine. And Podesta’s own words — and, again, he’s a practicing Catholic — make it sound like this opposition is half-hearted and disorganized.

When you call something a “conspiracy to foment strife,” you’re saying it’s something sinister, illegal, secretive and malicious. What you’ve described, instead, is none of those things. It’s garden-variety political opposition, utilizing the First Amendment, and it sounds all too weak, disorganized and ineffective, which Podesta implies himself.

What you’ve described isn’t in the same universe as “conspiracy.” You’ve simply described political opposition to reactionary Catholic doctrine. And Podesta’s own words — and, again, he’s a practicing Catholic — make it sound like this opposition is half-hearted and disorganized.

When you call something a “conspiracy to foment strife,” you’re saying it’s something sinister, illegal, secretive and malicious. What you’ve described, instead, is none of those things. It’s garden-variety political opposition, utilizing the First Amendment, and it sounds all too weak, disorganized and ineffective, which Podesta implies himself.

bnw wrote:

I’m Roman Catholic, you’re an atheist. There is great concern with the statements Pope Francis has made in regards to previous doctrine within the laity and clergy. Since that is true regarding Pope francis I assure you it is true of the position and actions of one John Podesta.

Great concern by whom, BNW? Just conservative Catholics. That’s it. The majority of Catholics don’t agree with right-wing positions on the vast majority of issues. You’re in the minority, and your own pope doesn’t agree with you, either, on most things.

Podesta’s views align far more closely with the majority of Catholics. So why would he even need to set up a “conspiracy to foment strife in the Catholic Church”? All he needs to do is voice his opinions, which are shared by a majority of Catholics, in the full light of day. There is no need for any secret, back-door, sinister and malicious plan. Ironically, it’s right-wing Catholics who are far more likely to need that. Demographics are against you, not people like Podesta.

Beyond all of that, and aside from the obvious paranoia in play, right-wing media is building up the Dems and folks like Podesta to an absurd degree, and making mountains out of molehills via those email leaks. They didn’t display powerful super-villains, capable of wreaking havoc on America. They showed the most mundane, everyday things imaginable, the same kinds of things you would find in GOP email exchanges, in fact.

In short, the main reason I responded to your posts here, BNW, is this: Just trying to get you to think that maybe, just maybe, your media sources have blown this stuff up waaaaay out of proportion to its actual impact. You believe the media does this to Trump all the time, right? I just wish you would apply at least the same level of skepticism when it comes to these kinds of reports.

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

Billy_T wrote:

NewMexicoRam wrote:

I appreciate the comments above.

For me, the evidence for a creating force is obvious in the way so much of nature “fits together.” In other words, nature itself would not exist unless millions of small functions came together at once, that is were designed to fit together. That does not prove anything, but for me it is enough explanation.

I can see that. I felt that way about the universe once I rejected Christianity too. Was “agnostic” about the existence of the Divine, but could never return to a belief in a “personal god” who interceded on our behalf. Too much evil in the world. Too much suffering. Too much inequality, etc. etc. And, far too little rhyme or reason for one person’s journey versus another’s.

So, basically, “deism” seemed to work for me, more or less. At least for another decade or so. But then reading more about evolution, and the way the universe formed, I no longer really saw the need for even “the god of the philosophers,” Spinoza’s god, Jefferson’s, etc. Nature really didn’t need a guiding hand. Evolution took care of that. Plus, the argument that “Well, this all had to come from somewhere. It couldn’t have come from nothing, so there must be a god.” Well, then, where did that god come from, if not nothing?

Infinite regress, etc. etc.

Interesting subject. Way back in the day, it was made even better with a little help from Nature.

;>)

Happy New Year, NMR.

If there is evil, is there not good? What determines our sense of evil and good if our existence is really just a random event? If everything is random, there shouldn’t be an evil or good. It just “is.”

And a grand and wonderful New Year to you Billy.

This is just my own view. In no way do I expect others to follow, etc. etc.

I don’t see “evil” or “good” as separate entities, or gods, or manifestations of gods, or Platonic essences, etc. etc. I see them as things people do to one another, and the perceptions and feelings that engenders. We choose how we define those things. We choose. No one else.

To me, “evil” and “good” come solely from within us, not outside us. And we use those words because we humans constantly feel the need to make sense of things, to order the chaos, the find patterns and structure in what is really a completely indifferent universe. This reality is something we can’t stand, consciously and/or sub-consciously. We can’t stand the idea that the universe wasn’t made for us, and we aren’t the center of it, and there is no purpose to our lives beyond what we create.

It’s all on us. It’s all up to us. All “meaning” comes from us — with regard to the world itself and our place within it and so much more. We are all writers and readers of fiction, when it comes to that. We create new fictions and/or accept the fictions we’ve been taught, primarily because it helps us survive and navigate and manage our way through this world.

The reasons we do need this, the reasons we feel we must, are complex. But I think a great deal of it is genetic, biological. We’re born with these needs. The rest is nurture, socialization, indoctrination, etc. Both/And. Nature and Nurture.

So, again, going back to “evil” and “good,” I think that is just what we call the things humans do to one another, and the reactions to all of that. It all comes from within us, as did all the gods and goddesses, which we alone invented. We alone created “god” in our own image, not the reverse. We alone, of all animal species, as far as we know, feel the need to do this . . .

(More on this later. I don’t want to make this post too long . . .)

___________________________________________________________

If the concept of “good and evil” come within ourselves, how does that negate the existence of a supreme intelligent being, otherwise thought of as God? In your initial response, you indicated that the existence of evil helped you to decide not to follow the Christian experience.