Marijuana.com

Trocisp

You obviously have a sore misunderstanding of physics.

We do, in fact, understand what gravity is. It's the curvature of space-time. As evidenced by the deeper you go into a gravity well the slower time moves (GPS satellites clocks tick 38 nanoseconds faster per day than equal clocks on earth).

I, if you noticed, didn't say that I would refute it with solid evidence, nor did I say I that it was a correct rebuttle. I just said I could. There's a very, very big difference, nornerator.

 

nornerator

This is not true. It is far more difficult to disprove something than it is to prove something.

Think of it this way, if you hold a ball in your hand and release it, it will fall to the ground (granted it is not lighter than air). You could do this 1000000000000 times and get the same result. This is good evidence for the existence of a force that attracts other objects called gravity. We can all "prove" gravity exists every day. Sure it is impossible to 100% prove that there is a force and that attracts other massive objects, but for all intents and purposes it is true.

Now if you are trying to prove that there is an all powerful all knowing god that interferes with the lives of humans, this should be very easy to prove with experiments. However because a god like this does not exist we have NEVER observed a god interacting with people. Even if a god did exist it wouldn't make a difference because it is clear he/she/it does not concern itself with humans or earth for that matter on any detectable scale.

For all intents and purposes it is easy to prove the existence of something, and very difficult to prove the non-existence of something. If god existed it should be very easy for us to observe his/her/its greatness. Unless you subscribe to the idea that god just makes it seem like he doesn't exist because that would destroy "faith". What a wretched god that is, sending all to be tortured for eternity for not believing in something that god purposefully makes it impossible to tell if its real or imaginary. Sounds like a god I would want to worship.... NOT!

Religion is a lie. It is a scam to get money from those not aware enough to ask questions.

nornerator

We do not understand the cause of gravity. We know how to measure it and roughly understand how it interacts with objects but unlike the other forces; Strong, Weak, and Electromagnetic we do not have a particle that carries this force. Although I am not a physics major I have a fairly good conceptual understanding of physics. The idea in the standard model is that different subatomic particles interact with a theoretical particle called the Higgs Boson and this is what causes the forces to precipitate. Gravity does not have a particle, there have not been any observed gravitons. We do not understand gravity at the fundamental level like we do the other forces. This is the entire basis for coming up with a unified theory of physics. We have not successfully merged Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, this is a very large area of study.

So yes, we understand how to measure gravity on very large scales and it works rather nicely, however because we do not understand gravity fundamentally we have not been able to measure it on the quantum scale.

Our understanding of gravity lags behind the rest of physics.

Trocisp

Read this.

I'm a fan of the General Relativity explanation.

First, you have to link Space and Time, SpaceTime. Simple enough, all the dimensions exist together (up/down, left/right, forward/backward, +time/-time).

Now that you have a single, larger object, you can better understand gravity. Think of a trampoline, if you had a person standing in the middle and rolled a ball around him or her. That action is much the same as the Earth orbiting through curved space-time around the sun. Or, the moon orbiting through curved SpaceTime around the sun.






It's not a particle, but an actual curvature of the "Fabric" of the universe itself.

StonedImmaculate21

There are plenty of people who have claimed to experience the presence of a God, they typically fall into three categories:

1) The true believer who has experienced a "miracle" or "blessing".
2) The completely deluded (may be interchangeable with #1)
3) Those under the influence of heavy-duty psychedelics. (Probably the most accurate and convincing depiction of a higher power that anyone can experience.)

The problem you've presented, however, is getting this God to show Himself (I'll use the male form, for simplicity) in a scientific setting. The Christian would argue that God, having bestowed upon us free will, would not make Himself so obvious because to do so would rob us of our freedom to disbelieve. Of course, then you ask them "well what about all those miracles, and sending His son to Earth for all to see?" And they just walk away, mumbling about how you'll be damned to Hell. It's hard to get a good debate going with those people.

Two popular proofs to think about (I look forward to seeing them ripped to shreds):

Anselm of Canterbury's Ontological proof, stating that God exists because:
A few largish gaps between the stepping stones of his logic, but interesting to think about, nonetheless.

Then there is Thomas Aquinas' proof, which basically states that the existence of God is self-evident, because the notion of creation implies a creator. This, of course, is the precursor to the "Divine Watchmaker" analogy.

Very old arguments, yes, but I believe they should still be taken into consideration when contemplating the idea of God.

No arguments from me, my friend. I believe that if there is a divine creator, He/She/It would want be as far removed from human ideas of religion. If I were God, I would be embarrassed to be thought of as some bloodthirsty father-figure, demanding the sacrifice of my own son and condemning people to eternal torture for questioning a contradictory, dehumanizing doctrine.

__________________
Feel free to add me at my MySpace page.
And my band page.

 

anewaphorist

I can definitely appreciate where Stoned is coming from and the proofs he/she introduced are some of the foremost attempts (along with Kant's moral argument and Descartes's cosmological argument) to prove the existence of God. But there is a fundamental problem with a priori proofs (like Anselm's) of God's existence, an inconsistency Hume points out in Cleanthes.

(1) The only way to prove something a priori is if its opposite implies a contradiction.
(2) If something implies a contradiction, then it is inconceivable.
(2) Everything can be conceived not to exist.
Therefore:
(3) Nothing can be proved to exist a priori.

To determine if a statement can be proved a priori, we first imagine that it is false. If we are able to imagine that it is false, then we may infer that it cannot be proved a priori; empirical investigation will be necessary in order to discover whether the statement is true or false. If we cannot imagine the statement as false, then we may infer that it is true. This is because conceivability is a guide to possibility. What is impossible entails a contradiction and what involves a contradiction is inconceivable; thus, what is impossible is inconceivable.


To determine whether God is a necessary being, therefore, we try to imagine that he does not exist. It is self-evident and "clear and distinct" that we can, so his non-existence is possible. No amount of abstract reasoning will be able to establish his existence, therefore, because only necessary truths can be proved a priori. The conceivability of God’s non-existence shows that no a priori proof of his existence is possible.



Thus, only a posteriori proofs can be used to attempt to prove God's existence; only a few of these exist (the argument from miracles and Swinburne's Principle of Credulity) and they are so problematic that I'll refrain from enumerating them here.



Our only option remaining in our attempt to find some reason to believe in God is to look at religious experiences for answers. But there is strong evidence to suggest that anecdotes detailing religious experiences are fallacious. (1) It is an accepted fact among the scientific community that most religious, supernatural, or extraordinary experiences exist subjectively in the mind of the person having them. Add to that (2), the problem of conflicting religious experiences. Adherents of all religions claim to have had experiences that validate their own dogma. If any of these appeals to experience are valid, then they all must be. Since religions conflict and are mutually inconsistent, however, none of these appeals to experience is valid. Traditional philosophic skepticism raises problem (3): all experiences are subjective. Any subjective experience is logically consistent with any number of objective states of affairs. No matter how we perceive the world, there are many other ways it could be. We could be dreaming (think of Descartes's dreaming argument) or hallucinating.


If our lucid, familiar experiences of the external world are not sufficient to justify belief in its existence, how much more dubious is the connection between hardly tangible religious experiences and belief in God?

nornerator

Yes, I understand that it is the fabric of space-time which is warped in the presence of matter. I have read a good deal on relativity, and I understand fairly well how it operates. Yes, matter causes a curvature in space time, but why? There is nothing we can detect interacting with the fabric of the cosmos itself. I still contend that we do not understand how gravity propagates and I do not think any physicist would say they knew. This is why you are always hearing about strange new theories of gravity, like quantum loop gravity and others. There is no explanation for the propagation of such a force, unlike the other forces in the universe. Additionally it is unknown why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces.