Major Proof of God

[questfortruth]

Dark Energy got Nobel Prize. So, in Universe are these three: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and matter. Therefore, if a person is religious, he places God as Dark Energy, Paradise as Dark Matter, and matter as matter. If a person is not religious, he invents new essences (new particles, new universes, modified Newton Gravity), which go against the Ockham Razor.

The mathematical formula Lambda*g_{mu nu} of Dark Energy shows all properties of Omnipresent and Unchangeable God. And God is not matter, but energy, due to dogmas of the Church.

formula Lambda*g_{mu nu} is the second term on the left-hand side of
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia

I wrote, "It is God for a religious person only."
I did not write, "It is God for any religious person."

It is not demonstrated yet, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are material things. Therefore, they can be religious things. If a person is a believer in God and Paradise, he must place them somewhere in the Universe. God is Dark Energy because both are Omnipresent. Paradise is Dark Matter because both do not reflect or absorb light.

A believer has faith. He does not ask Science for evidence. The question of evidence borders only Atheists. Why? Because Knowledge is defined as what the God of that person knows. So, existence of God is automatically proven for believer.

It is necessary for a believer, who has accepted my ideas. Any thing must take part in gravitational interaction. Gravity is curved spacetime. Hence, God curves spacetime making it expand.

Why the Chain of gods is absurd: god 1 created god 2, god 2 created god 3, god 3 created god 4? If you are not Christian, this chain could be. So, no problem with "If world is created, who created god?"

God does things by Miracle. Why? Miracles must exist. Proof: impossible miracle is possible through a miracle. Hence, all miracles are possible.

What's the difference between a proof and a major proof?
There are countless proofs for God, for example, of Dr. Thomas Aquinas Seven Ways. The most recent proof I called major one.

Non-believer PruePhillip: "God didn't create life directly, He caused his creation to create life. That's what evolution does."
But you are non-believer, so, you wrote a nonsense. Why? You are not believing the things you wrote.

 

[1213]

Dark Energy got Nobel Prize. So, in Universe are these three: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, matter. Therefore, if person is religious, he places God as Dark Energy, Paradise as Dark Matter,....

I am not convinced that dark energy or matter is a real thing, but please explain why would dark energy necessary mean God?

 

[PoetPhilosopher]

I'm a little confused about what the OP is trying to say, but this comic seemed relevant:

 

[questfortruth]

I am not convinced that dark energy or matter is a real thing, but please explain why would dark energy necessary mean God?

It is God for a religious person only.

 

[questfortruth]

I am not convinced that dark energy or matter is a real thing, but please explain why would dark energy necessary mean God?

The mathematical formula Lambda*g_{mu nu} =T_{mu nu} of Dark Energy shows all properties of Omnipresent and Unchangeable God. And God is not matter, but energy, due to dogmas of Church.

 

[questfortruth]

a little confused

If a person is not religious, he invents new essences (new particles, new universes, modified Newton Gravity), which go against the Ockham Razor.

 

[ChristineM]

It is God for a religious person only.

More likely it is god for you and you are imposing your belief on other religious people.

I know many religious people, in fact about 60 to 70 percent of the people i know are followers of one religion or another and not one of them is of the belief that their god(s) are dark energy or dark matter.

 

[Tinker Grey]

nicht einmal falsch

 

[questfortruth]

you are imposing your belief on other religious people.

Another try to put mods to ban me?

You are wrong. Look. I wrote "It is God for a religious person only."
I did not write "It is God for any religious person."

 

[ChristineM]

Another try to put mods to ban me?

You are wrong. Look. I wrote "It is God for a religious person only."
I did not write "It is God for any religious person."

Wow.

FYI, each and every religious person is a religious person

BTW, i have no intention of trying to get you banned, on the contrary, you brighten my day

 

[Quintessence]

It is God for a religious person only.

Eh, as a polytheistic pantheist I operate under the assumption that all is worthy of worship (that is, all is gods), but Dark Matter or Dark Energy would not make my list of things to actively worship. I only actively worship things that are relevant to my life and living, and I'm neither a professional astronomer or astrophysicist.

 

[paarsurrey]

Dark Energy got Nobel Prize. So, in Universe are these three: Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and matter. Therefore, if a person is religious, he places God as Dark Energy, Paradise as Dark Matter, and matter as matter. If a person is not religious, he invents new essences (new particles, new universes, modified Newton Gravity), which go against the Ockham Razor.

The mathematical formula Lambda*g_{mu nu} =T_{mu nu} of Dark Energy shows all properties of Omnipresent and Unchangeable God. And God is not matter, but energy, due to dogmas of Church.

I wrote "It is God for a religious person only."
I did not write "It is God for any religious person."

"Religion: Eastern Orthodox Christianity"

One's premise to consider god in terms of physical, material and or science terms is totally erroneous, one gets to know, the truthful G-d is neither material or physical nor a spirit; all material, physical and spirits are G-d's creation, and that is why He claims to be the Creator of everything, please, right?

Regards

 

[Alien826]

@questfortruth, you may be misunderstanding Occam's Razor. It does not say that any simpler explanation is better than any more complicated one. Nor does it claim to define truth.

 

[questfortruth]

but Dark Matter or Dark Energy would not make my list of things to actively worship.

It is not demonstrated yet, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are material things. Therefore, they can be religious things.

 

[Tinker Grey]

It is not demonstrated yet, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are material things. Therefore, they can be religious things.

Non sequitur

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

@questfortruth, you may be misunderstanding Occam's Razor. It does not say that any simpler explanation is better than any more complicated one. Nor does it claim to define truth.

Agreed. I didn't care for either video on Occam's Razor. I word it as the simplest explanation that accounts for all relevant observations is the preferred one. It doesn't mean that it is the final answer, as new observations may arise requiring a complication of the narrative, a when dark matter and dark energy were added to the mix to account for galactic dynamics and accelerating universal expansion respectively. Adding them before they were needed would add no explanatory power, just additional complexity that served no purpose before the additional findings were discovered.

The flat, stationary earth model worked fine as long as nothing observed was not accounted for by it. If all we know is that we can't feel the earth moving and that the sun rises in the east every morning and sets in the west, that model works, and adding more detail such as that the earth is spherical, not flat, that it rotates rather than the sun orbiting it, and that it moves about the sun, does nothing for us until we start noticing things like distant ships sinking below the horizon that aren't accounted for by a flat, fixed earth model

And yes, razors don't tell us what the truth is, just how to order our logical possibilities in terms of likelihood. All plausible naturalistic explanations like abiogenesis, for example, are preferred over all supernaturalistic explanations simply because they do it without gods, a huge presumption (unnecessary complexity) with no additional explanatory power.

There are a few of these pieces of advice that help us order our lists of candidate hypothesis in terms of likelihood. Hitchen's Razor is well known - "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." Clearly, that doesn't mean that the claim is untrue, just not worth believing, and unless the truth is important, not even worth fact checking, since most such claims don't bear scrutiny. And Sagan has a similar razor - "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

We have an implied razor from Popper with his principle of scientific statements needing to be falsifiable. Implied is that investigating them for truth content is time wasted.

There are a few quaint ones. Hanlon’s razor says to, "never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by incompetence or stupidity." I don't actually agree with that one, but it's a razor nevertheless, since it wants to order logical possibilities and put answers requiring only stupidity over those requiring malice. I think that malice and conspiracy are both much more common than is suspected, which is why so many people get conned and gaslighted, but that's not relevant to what a razor is.

Also, "if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, ..." it's a duck until one has reason to think otherwise. Put duck at the top of your list when one sees that, not robot or hallucination or bunny dressed up like a duck. The others are possible, but less likely, and should not be seriously considered before having a reason to believe it's not a duck.

We had one when I was in medical school - "If you hear hooves clopping, think horse, not zebra." This was advice to pursue common diagnoses first all things being equal.

The common thread to all of these is not to say what is true or not, but what is tentatively the preferred explanation until it is no longer adequate to account for all relevant observation.

One more metaphor from medicine. New patients would come into the office with a bag of prescribed medication wondering if it was too much. I explained that the optimal med list is one where the patient does worse if any is removed, and cannot be made better by adding any more meds, either. The optimal regimen is that which is as simple as possible without sacrificing efficacy. That maxim doesn't tell what that optimal medication list is, just how to tell if we've found it: one less med - maybe the estrogen - and the hot flashes return, and one more med produces no benefit even if it does no harm.

By analogy, the optimal explanatory narrative according to Occam has just the right amount of complexity such that if we remove any of the elements, it no longer accounts for all relevant data, so put that back in, and if we add any complexity, it adds no additional predictive power, so take that back out.

And to the OP, it's hard to imagine adding any more complexity to a narrative than a god. If that god isn't necessary, take it out. This is why gods appear in no scientific laws or theories - they add complexity without adding utility to the narrative. The science can do no more with gods in it.

 

[questfortruth]

I operate under the assumption that all is worthy of worship (that is, all is gods), but Dark Matter or Dark Energy would not make my list of things to actively worship. I only actively worship things that are relevant to my life and living, and I'm neither a professional astronomer or astrophysicist.

It is not demonstrated yet, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are material things. Therefore, they can be religious things.

If a person is a believer in God and Paradise, he must place them somewhere in the Universe. God is Dark Energy because both are Omnipresent. Paradise is Dark Matter because both do not reflect or absorb light.

 

[ChristineM]

It is not demonstrated yet, that Dark Matter and Dark Energy are material things. Therefore, they can be religious things.

Nope therefore they are unknown. You however may believe whatever you want

 

[questfortruth]

You however may believe whatever you want

If a person is a believer in God and Paradise, he must place them somewhere in the Universe.

 

[icehorse]

The mathematical formula Lambda*g_{mu nu} =T_{mu nu} of Dark Energy shows all properties of Omnipresent and Unchangeable God.

Can you walk us through that?