English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Since the justification for atheism seems to be that, since God is not measurable (or at least has not been measured), does it stand to reason that gravitation waves, which are predicted by General Relativity, also do not exist since they have not been measured (despite methods devised and constructed to do so)?

2007-11-19 05:09:13 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

Magley64...AM: Graviation is an observable phenomenon. Gravitational waves are quite a different theoretical phenomenon.

2007-11-19 05:13:33 · update #1

Aviator: The underlying theory in favor of gravitational waves is not based on observation. Rather, it predicted observations.

2007-11-19 05:14:31 · update #2

Taelec: They have been "measured" indirectly by observing a loss of energy among rotating binary stars consistent with the loss of energy predicted by general relativity. However, the relationship is not causal in nature and there existence have therefore not yet been proven.

2007-11-19 05:16:01 · update #3

[Vinyl] AM: Gravity != gravitational waves.

2007-11-19 05:17:02 · update #4

deztractshun: It's "you're". But my point isn't to prove the existence of God, but rather to point out the fundamental logical flaw in atheist thinking. Namely that a thing that has not been verified (presumably by some standard) must be rejected by default. Several responses from atheists here agree that this is the thinking. Gravitational waves are a phenomenon predicted in theory by never directly observed and remain unproven. Applying that atheist rules of dogma, they must therefore be rejected.

2007-11-19 05:20:40 · update #5

tamyp: There is certainly indirect evidence, but that evidence falls short of the direct evidence that astrophysisists require. Following the rules that govern atheism, one must therefore reject that they exist.

2007-11-19 05:23:27 · update #6

tamyp: Obviously the point is lost on you. Perhaps if you weren't so mired in your fundamentalist "religion", you'd open your eyes just wide enough to see that I am not producing proof of God, but rather criticizing your flawed theological methods that assume no God.

2007-11-19 05:25:09 · update #7

tamyp: The point is still lost on you since you equate my question to the "wind" questions. Wind is directly measurable. My point is, once again, the the basis of atheism is that there exists no direct proof of God. This foundation of faith if followed to its logical conclusion, requires a rejection of those things which have not been proven. Sensibly, it should lead to agnosticism, rather than atheism. But that simply isn't the case. In other words, the fundamental basis of that particular breed atheism is flawed.

2007-11-19 05:36:45 · update #8

15 answers

I think the key difference between God and gravity is that God is not measureABLE, and God has no known affect on the tangible universe (at least not a measureable one), whereas gravity does. The effects of gravity can be seen and experienced, but it can't be measured in otherwise empty space.
However, it could be argued that God's affect on the tangible universe would be the universe itself, and that could also be called Pantheism.

2007-11-19 05:14:15 · answer #1 · answered by Mickey Mouse Spears 7 · 2 0

Mathematically they have a significant amount of evidence because of pulsar measurements. If I thought you were actually open to learning I might say you can criticize the amount of evidence of gravitational waves when you produce the same amount of evidence for god.

This is one more tired attempt to prop up belief. If someone truly has faith they don't run in circles trying to justify it to others. So when gravitational waves are directly measured will you declare "there is no god". Or will you simply retreat and make another stand in your battle to convince yourself?

===

"Namely that a thing that has not been verified (presumably by some standard) must be rejected by default."

You're making the same mistake that people asking the tired old "If you can't see the wind..." question keep making. You presume that a group that shares only a lack of belief in 'A' also share belief 'B'.

Then you make the mistake in assuming all claims are equal. The claim of the existence of gravitational waves is far from equal to the claim that an all-knowing all-powerful being created everything. All claims are not equal.

==
" Following the rules that govern atheism, one must therefore reject that they exist." That is the most laughable thing you've said so far. There are no "rules that govern atheism". You have lost all credibility.

"Obviously the point is lost on you. Perhaps if you weren't so mired in your fundamentalist "religion", you'd open your eyes just wide enough to see that I am not producing proof of God, but rather criticizing your flawed theological methods that assume no God."

The assumption is all yours. I never once said "there is no god". I'm open to all possibilities but before accepting evidence of something it must first have evidence.

Gravitational waves was a poor choice at best. I could actually give you a better argument to support your position. And Yet I could still come up with a better one as to why your argument is flawed.
==

"the the basis of atheism is that there exists no direct proof of God."

Sorry but it's clear you're inventing this as you go. The word atheist simply means 'not theist' the prefix 'a' meaning not or without. Beyond that there is no explicit or implicit claim of what the atheists views are or why. And there are definitely no "rules that govern atheism".

To make your argument you've had to redefine the people you think you're arguing against then narrowly define what they believe. This is exactly what the people asking the "wind" question are doing also. They invariably start with "Atheists believe in nothing they can't see..." They have to invent what the 'other side' believes before they can have an argument. Just like you did.

And you just made my point...
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=ArVXFF4pmqUjRfqx8tz7z1Pd7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20071119110628AAeYKZ3

2007-11-19 05:18:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

I don't think the lack of measuring God is the problem. You have been misinformed about what atheists think. You just gave the theory that describes gravitational waves as existing. This is based on evidence, observations, and experimentation. There is yet to be any kind of evidence to support the existence of God, not just the lack of measuring.

Edit: what I meant was that the entire Theory of Relativity is based on evidence, observation, and experimentation. And you are arguing that atheists shouldn't believe things that are only predicted in theory, to be consistent. But God is not predicted in any theory, so your argument is a Straw Man.

2007-11-19 05:12:34 · answer #3 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 1 0

You're making gross assumptions here. Even if this was true how does this help your case for god? If we are unable to measure something such as gravitational waves do you think we are all of a sudden gonna "see the light".

"Oh we can't measure gravitational waves therefore god must exist"

I'm just not seeing the correlation here.

"Scientists have flaws in the way they think therefore god must exist"


Fine then they don't exist.

2007-11-19 05:16:38 · answer #4 · answered by That's Why 3 · 0 0

No, because gravitation is observable. Gravitational waves are part of a mathematical model for documenting that observation in a way that is consistent with the rest of observable evidence. They may or may not exist, and it's less a matter of their existence and more a matter of explaining what does seem to exist.

There is no mathematical model, observable evidence, or logical supposition for the existence of God.

2007-11-19 05:16:57 · answer #5 · answered by STFU Dude 6 · 2 0

The justification for atheism is the abscence of proof and the absurdity of the proposition, whereas, gravitational waves are a logical prediction based on physics and complex math.

Also, notice how stuff falls towards the earth.

2007-11-19 05:13:29 · answer #6 · answered by Dr. Socks 5 · 2 0

A recently published book entitled The Universe Explained admits that ‘gravity is the most familiar, yet the least understood, of nature’s forces.’ It adds: “Gravitational force seems to travel across empty space instantly, without any obvious means of doing so. In recent years, however, physicists have begun to speculate that gravity might travel in waves made of particles called gravitons . . . But no one is quite certain of their existence.” Think about what that implies.

2007-11-19 05:18:21 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

philosophers have been trying to prove or disprove the existence of god for many years, and both have come up with simple logical explinations that do both. the only truth that i can think of on the subject is that if there is a god he exists outside of our universe and our logic, therefore he is not a slave to rules, logic, or anything else so there are no means to prove he exists through logic

2007-11-19 05:15:12 · answer #8 · answered by notzimmer 2 · 0 0

Gravity CAN be measured, though. Your logic is flawed and therefore your question is irrelevant. Good day, sir.

2007-11-19 05:14:35 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2 0

Ask a science professor. Next you are going to compare noise to belief in a god...will you let it rest?

2007-11-19 05:15:26 · answer #10 · answered by Star 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers