DHA's Wager

I would say that the best answer is agnosticismyou don't know because you don't have enough information to know.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

so you are claiming that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. that must place high concern on missing evidence in science then: gravitons, gravity waves, just for starters.how do you rule out a god that became the universe, immolating itself in the process?sorry, but logically agnosticism is the only valid answer, and anything else is based on faith.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

so dark matter and dark energy ... total absence of evidence or even an idea of what it is other than a fudge factor to make mathematical equations balance ... time for it to go? okay so now how about a god that is unknowable, as the totality of a human is unknowable to the bacteria living in it's stomach and whose only contact is with the fluids in that stomach? a god whose normal digestive process forms the rules of natural behavior that we see?To me you can logically be an atheist versus various religions but not against the entire concept, as that is essentially using the strawman argument with a weakened version of the concept of god (weakened because of the restrictions placed on god by the religion) as a refutable belief (there was no world wide flood, therefore there is no god). and if god is so beyond knowing that all the evidence that is available for observation is small fluctuations in background noise? perhaps the dance of subatomic particles is the effect of god's thoughts. can you rule that out? why does it leave a door open to ideas that contradict the evidence available? that is illogical, and as illogical as the concept that showing the bible to not be absolutly literally true totally disproves the concepts of christianity, imho.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

How about assuming that the equations are in error instead of the universe? My example had to do with our ability to understand, while yours is based on several fanciful yet unnecessary and illogical leaps of imagination to make yet another strawman that has nothing to do with the argument. And I agree that it is unnecessary to speculate on it, especially as that was not what I was talking about. If you want to talk about magic koalas I know of a board and a thread for that.
(see blackandwhite’s version of the story (click) and the discussion board is on netscape at the "Magic Koalas" ... thread (click) -- if you want to read more than the one post visible you will need to sign on with a netscape, aol or aim screenname and then set your preferences for reading messages in the last 700 days minimum (mine are set to 9000 to go back to the very beginning of that board) fun stuffs.) You can always start with the standard definition in the dictionary: The second is a little more generic than the first (omni-this and omni-that not required, just supernatural powers).You could also say god is an {essence\force} beyond natural understanding to bring it more in line with the eastern religions that do not necessarily have a prime persona (the being that is not being) ... kind of like, say the force that holds a galaxy together in a way that cannot be fully explained by the known mechanisms of gravity, or say the randomness of behavior at the subatomic level.You can assume a supernatural action, or you can assume a natural action, but you cannot prove either. But this is my point: you cannot rule it out, therefore the logical answer is that you don’t know one way or the other ... and thus agnosticism is the most logical answer. Why? There is no reason for ideas that are not (1) logically {built\consistent} and (2) based on evidence of the natural world (or at least are not contradicted by them). This is the essence of the deist position after all, but more than that: if one assumes a god is responsible then one also has to assume that the best evidence of that work to be the product involved (or posit something\body more powerful that disrupts it). It did, I am too, in spite of a splitting headache and a ton of work to do.{{edited to fix magic koala link}}This message has been edited by RAZD, 02-15-2005 07:06 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The part where the mathematical equations are seen as more valid that the observations. Time and again we see modifications to equations when other information requires it. What is special here that we must assume dark stuffs to make the equations work? Right, you made a strawman that was easy to refute instead of addressing the issue. By Occam's razor there should be no presumption of dark stuffs in the cosmos. The issue is that because you cannot determine one way or the other the existence of god(s), that the most logical assumption is that you do not know one way or the other: agnostic. I wouldn't worry about it too much. The "blackandwhite" character is an interesting case of a person with the absolute inability to admit to making mistakes, and this leads to some pretty far fetched scenes. He also keeps a website page with insults he has perceived receiving so that he can share his misfortune with others. Perhaps the force making the galaxies spin out of sync with the gravity theory equations. Perhaps the manifestation of subatomic particles. Supernatural is In an extreme inerpretation, anything you cannot explain by natural means could be considered supernatural. In a practial one, anything you cannot explain by natural means only may be supernatural (as it has not been eliminated by a natural explanation).If you recognize something but cannot explain it with natural world mechanisms can you rule out supernatural? If you recognize that the equations just do not add up to the observations, you are left with "I don't know" ... But you accept "dark stuffs" as a "force that holds a galaxy" without any evidence for it's existence or even a theory regarding what it is and how it affects matter and energy in the universe. The observation is that galaxies are spinning faster than they should, especially in the outer arms, for the amount of {e=mc²} that is observed. There is no evidence for the actual existence of the dark stuffs. Or any idea of what {it} is and how {it} came to be. The only evidence is the effects that such dark stuffs would produce. This is like saying that the evidence for geocentric theory is the epicycles on the epicycles of planetary motion. Is that a natural explanation? Now wrap your mind around the fact that it has to comprise 96% of the universe, and tell me we have a natural explanation?Personally I find the concept of 'branes and an extra dimension or two more logical, but with them go the concept that {mass\energy} out of the plane³ of our universe is still acting on the {mass\energy} within it: de facto supernatural as it is outside our natural universe. There is also no evidence upon which to substantiate any premises, much less conclusions, to assumptions that assert no beings of sentience and limitless capabilities ... so to make conclusions base on {the first empty set} while {dismissing\disallowing} conclusions based on {the second empty set} is being logically inconsistent at best. Can you produce {evidence\theory} to the contrary that can be falsified?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So as long as the supernatural explanation is in keeping with our closed minded preconceptions of physics it is ok, but if it is in keeping with an open mind on spirituality then it isn't?Seeing the effects is not the same as seeing the cause of the effects, and so far all the black stuff is amounts to a supernatural explanation, like it or not.Attributing the observed behavior to "dark stuffs" is no different than attributing it to god(s) ... That would be my point. While a valid point regarding the original topic it is not relevant to the agnostic position, or any theistic position that god(s) is(are) unknowable, especially those that do not claim that such a god would care.And as regards the original topic, the best postition has to be the "I don't know" position, imho.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

And this means it is not done by the gods of dark stuffs how? And the fact that there is no natural explanation for their existence or behavior, not even the twinkling of a theory, leaving us with something that is by definition supernatural, doesn't bother you as long as you accept the gods of the dark stuffs. How do you know {he\she\it\they} haven't? Ah. Thus whenever one has doubts one only has to choose an opinion and then stick by it adamantly and the doubt is resolved. Sounds like faith to me. You shouldn't be afraid to say "I don't know" on any topic once the balance of knowledge has been exhausted.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Dark stuffs are outside of our current understanding of the natural universe, hence supernatural by definition. No, that is not the point. Our natural world behaves according to the current theories of gravity ... except where the gods of dark stuffs need to be invoked to make it match observations. Like epicycles. Why does mathematical symmetry have any validity in controlling the way theories are constructed? Isn't this forcing theory to conform to a preconceived notion of the solution?And "some sort of antigravitational force" is not any kind of description of what causes that force or how it behaves. But okay, you may have a twinkling of a twinkling of a concept that may become a part of a theory ... that may possibly have something to say about dark stuffs. Excuse me while I hold my breath okay?Now I fully expect a new theory of gravity to resolve things so that dark stuffs are not necessary at all, in which case they really will be the "epicycles" of the 20th century. I find it humorous that people are so willing to defend dark stuffs as real when all you have is evidence of gravitational anomalies.Until that happens, attributing the behavior to the mythological existence of dark stuffs is no different than attributing it to the behavior of a god or gods, and in fact you cannot show that one is more true than the other.They are each based on faith in their belief about the universe, and denial of the other view. The logical point of view is that you don't know.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

um, since the first day it was invoked to explain the observations that did not match the natural understanding of the universe. which means either dark stuffs in our solar system or some other {process\relationship} is causing the effect, which should be expected anyway regardless of what is causing the behavior in the galaxies, right? you are still using observations as evidence for an explanation of the observations. is just explaining the preconception that the math is correct first and foremost.seems to me that there are a lot of particles that supersymmetry predicts that have yet to be found. way more than just partners needed for the cosmic dance.and as far as that goes, got any 'gravitons' yet? How many experiments have been designed for gravitons where they have willingly showed up? No it was "dreamed up" to make the mathematical part of the theory work out nice and pretty. when they do they do. until they can actually show something is there -- and that it adds up to the volume required -- my bets are on the other horses, some of them dark .it's not that I don't believe dark stuffs exist, it is that I believe that some other explanation is more likely. you are talking about something that supposedly makes up some 96% of the universe, and yet we still ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

and none of which proves that there are no godsand hence that the agnostic position is not more logically valid.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

really? Seems to me you are using agnostic(1b) as atheist. The definition of atheist is pretty clear to me.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

You would have to stretch to reach that conclusion from any of my statements. Try again. My understanding is that the observed anomalies in their behavior have been going on for some time and are not limited to their leaving the solar system.In any event this certainly should not be unexpected, no matter what explanation of the anomalous behavior of galaxies turns out to be true (ie anomalous behavior should be observed "here" as well as "there" whether it is due to dark gods or to misunderstanding the gravity of the matter). Last time I checked the scientific process did not run: (1) make observation {A} that does not fit with previous theories, (2) devise explanation {B} that explains how {A} could happen, and then (3) use {A} as evidence that {B} is correct.This is what I am objecting to. The evidence to corroborate {B} has to be both new and predicted by {B}, or my understanding of the scientific process is wrong Wrong. Physics is how the universe works. Math is part of the model to explain it. And it is impossible for math to properly totally model reality. Because a formula works out is no guarantee that the universe will even notice to say nothing about following suit. No. What I am saying is not to become bemused by the math involved in one explanation to the point of not looking at other possibilities. Why? I said it was an opinion. And I could say "after you" but there are several other explanation for the anomalous behavior that do not require the invocation of dark stuffs, from ekpyrosis to einsteins' universal constant, and others. I also look at the problem of the gravitons and other missing elements of current theory. Then we have the problem that dark matter was not good enough to explain all the anomalous behaviors, so now we have to have dark energy. What's next? Dark Gravity? It is a pattern that historically has been resolved by a new theory, not forcing things to fit the old theories. They tried that with epicycles if memory serves. :Chuckle:Totally irrelevant strawman. Would you say that we have a good understanding of over 90% of the composition of the solar system? Or is it only 4%? The question is about how much we understand the universe, not how much volume it takes up.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

So? Why only that one? Many people of other faiths don't believe that god exists, yet still believe in a god. Again, same issue. And it matters little what you believe if you cannot demonstrate it. Which statemtent are you refering to here?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

It really is quite simple.Absent proof that {A} exists, and
Absent proof that {A} does not existWhat is the most logical position:
(1) Yes {A} exists
(2) No {A} does not exist
(3) We don't know if {A} exists or notRegardless of what {A} is (whether it is dark stuffs, gravitons or gods), and whether you (or I) believe that {A} exists (or doesn't) has no bearing on the issue.All that is at issue is determining what is the more logical position: (1), (2) or (3).

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

okay so you are an atheist. your need to specifically deny one form of religion is still amusing to me, but it is an issue for you to deal with on your terms. Totally false. For one, logical validity does not depend on who you are or what you believe, it depends on the argument being logically consistent.As noted elsewhere on several occasions absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. There is no way to show that the behavior of the {natural world\universe} is not what god has caused to be, if for no other reason than there is no other frame of reference for comparison.Thus the whole universe could be your "trace evidence" without any need to look for subtle anomalies.as I said to Rrhain above: enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}