In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.

One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence.


Curled from many places. Now,i know that belief in dark matter in reality has nothing to do with atheism. I was just wondering that well, since dark matter cannot be seen even by telescopes. . . .then that means it does not exist? Just like ghosts?

pastormustwacc: In astronomy and cosmology, dark matter is a type of matter hypothesized to account for a large part of the total mass in the universe. Dark matter cannot be seen directly with telescopes; evidently it neither emits nor absorbs light or other electromagnetic radiation at any significant level. Instead, its existence and properties are inferred from its gravitational effects on visible matter, radiation, and the large scale structure of the universe. Dark matter is estimated to constitute 84% of the matter in the universe and 23% of the mass-energy.

One explanation for dark energy is that it is a property of space. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize that empty space is not nothing. Space has amazing properties, many of which are just beginning to be understood. The first property that Einstein discovered is that it is possible for more space to come into existence.


Curled from many places. Now,i know that belief in dark matter in reality has nothing to do with atheism. I was just wondering that well, since dark matter cannot be seen even by telescopes. . . .then that means it does not exist? Just like ghosts?

I wish to remind you and others, for the millionth time, that atheist are not beholden to any set of creeds, doctrines, or rules. Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.
Atheists are people who excercise their freedom to unrestrained and unrestricted thinking,and part of thinking involves questioning and rejecting notions that make no sense.

Therefore, it is inappropriate to ask anyone, atheists or theists , whether they BELIEVE in a scientific hypothesis.
There is no room for the word 'belief' in science. Belief belongs in the realms of religion,myths and legends, and science is none of those.
Scientists either accept or reject an idea or hypothesis, and they do this based solely on facts and notions are already known and accepted.

Like you said,the very fact that existence and properties of Dark Matter can be infered from the gravitational effects on visible matter and radiation says it all.

The issue of belief does not and should not belong in this type of discussion.

Does belief in something with deducable evidence come as a shock? No, its just a neccesity....

@op. Maybe you'd have to rephrase the question to :'atheists, do you accept the evidence for the dark-matter?'

Like plaetton said. If dark matter's existence can be inferred from scientifically reproducible experiments using basic principles of physics then yes I believe it. Why do you ask, is that God right there in the dark matter?

plaetton:

I wish to remind you and others, for the millionth time, that atheist are not beholden to any set of creeds, doctrines, or rules. Atheism is not a philosophical proposition.
Atheists are people who excercise their freedom to unrestrained and unrestricted thinking,and part of thinking involves questioning and rejecting notions that make no sense.

Therefore, it is inappropriate to ask anyone, atheists or theists , whether they BELIEVE in a scientific hypothesis.
There is no room for the word 'belief' in science. Belief belongs in the realms of religion,myths and legends, and science is none of those.
Scientists either accept or reject an idea or hypothesis, and they do this based solely on facts and notions are already known and accepted.

Like you said,the very fact that [b]existence and properties of Dark Matter can be inferred from the gravitational effects on visible matter and radiation says it all.[/b]

The issue of belief does not and should not belong in this type of discussion.

Inference and proof are not the same thing.

According to wikipedia, Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

I am not an atheist myself but I have interacted with a lot of them and have quite a number of them as friends. In all of our discussions, I have not, yet, seen any that acknowledged a faith or belief in God or any deity.

Various scientific models (and theories) have been postured, in the past, based on inferences from experiments only to be modified or disproved later. That goes on to highlight a fact that science is limited to : 1. The amount of knowledge on which it is based. 2.Empirical stuffs.

One thing to consider is the fact that people have feelings yet you can neither empirically prove nor disprove it. Yet the feelings are there. Talking about spirituality, spiritual experiences and spiritual entities, is like talking about feelings. The fact that someone has not experienced it does not, in any way, indicate the non-existence or falsehood of such.

This is interesting, i was just looking for wahala jare. In a way, dark matter reminds me of the invisible God.

pastormustwacc: This is interesting, i was just looking for wahala jare. In a way, dark matter reminds me of the invisible God.

I knew this was your motive right from the start and thats why I avoided this thread!

I knew that was why you ran away from the thread. The original title was meant to be: Logicboy, do you believe in dark matter?
But i changed my mind at the last minute. The board is a bit boring this weekend - no thread like anyone dancing alanta.

Op is hard to take seriously considering he's a troll. Post with your dhtml account and perhaps you'll be taken more seriously

Like has already been stated, there's unaccounted for gravity in the universe, something must be responsible. For now, as nobody knows what it is, it's tagged 'dark' matter/energy.

If you want to somehow claim nothing can come from nothing, therefore there must have always been something, or the self-existent source of this universe, cool. That's ostensibly logical reasoning*. However, like dark matter, it would only mean some form of energy, not a (especially personal) god, has always been self-existent. The myriad gods from humanity's religions are particularly ridiculous.

First cause is almost certainly not a conscious intelligence as well. Intelligence is complex, it would be silly to assume complexity existed before simplicity. All across nature, and logically even, it is simple to complex and not the other way round.

So there's no evidence, logical or otherwise, to support a personal god in particular, or a conscious first cause. Logically maybe there is some to support some eternal energy source, but a thinking god? No



*though I don't personally fully subscribe to it, quantum etc seems to have energy showing up from nothing, but I'm no expert. anyways, scientifically we cannot say something cannot come from nothing just yet

Privy:

Inference and proof are not the same thing.

According to wikipedia, Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

I am not an atheist myself but I have interacted with a lot of them and have quite a number of them as friends. In all of our discussions, I have not, yet, seen any that acknowledged a faith or belief in God or any deity.

Various scientific models (and theories) have been postured, in the past, based on inferences from experiments only to be modified or disproved later. That goes on to highlight a fact that science is limited to : 1. The amount of knowledge on which it is based. 2.Empirical stuffs.

One thing to consider is the fact that people have feelings yet you can neither empirically prove nor disprove it. Yet the feelings are there. Talking about spirituality, spiritual experiences and spiritual entities, is like talking about feelings. The fact that someone has not experienced it does not, in any way, indicate the non-existence or falsehood of such.

You claim that experiences cannot be empirically verified. They cannot be tested, verified/falsified, they cannot been proven. So, you have no problem when people don't disprove something that is not proven, yes?

And your brain can be monitored to determine if you're having a spiritual experience, emotions, drug trips etc. One would have to look at the chemicals in your brain. As for objective spiritual entities... well...

Perhaps you think there's a problem with science because it relies on empirical evidence? Or those who attach little weight to subjective and unverifiable spiritual entities? You'd rather your tv was powered by spirits? Or are you one of those who would have thought it wise to fight the white colonist with jazz? You know how that ended up, yes?

Something happens in your mind, good for you. Don't expect people to accept your claims simply because you say so. ~45000 other religions we've come up with also say so. One might as well accept them all too. They all have the same amount of evidence, non.

edits

Privy:

Inference and proof are not the same thing.

According to wikipedia, Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

I am not an atheist myself but I have interacted with a lot of them and have quite a number of them as friends. In all of our discussions, I have not, yet, seen any that acknowledged a faith or belief in God or any deity.

Various scientific models (and theories) have been postured, in the past, based on inferences from experiments only to be modified or disproved later. That goes on to highlight a fact that science is limited to : 1. The amount of knowledge on which it is based. 2.Empirical stuffs.

One thing to consider is the fact that people have feelings yet you can neither empirically prove nor disprove it. Yet the feelings are there. Talking about spirituality, spiritual experiences and spiritual entities, is like talking about feelings. The fact that someone has not experienced it does not, in any way, indicate the non-existence or falsehood of such.

The planet Pluto(now dwarf planet) is so far away and so small in our solar system that it was only discovered when astronomers noticed its gravitational perturbations around Neptune. Long before it was photographed,astronomers used calculations using Newtonian Physics to pinpoint its location, size, mass and its make up.
In other words, by mathematical inference,the existence of the planet pluto was accepted as fact, long before it was officially photographed.

This is an example of making scientific inferences from what is already known and accepted.

NB:
Everyone is free to believe in whatever spiritual entities that they fancy. Atheists have no problems with that.
The problem lies in coming out in a public forum to convince everyone to see what is unique to your mind, and use all manners of convoluted logic in order to prove same.

wiegraf: Op is hard to take seriously considering he's a troll. Post with your dhtml account and perhaps you'll be taken more seriously

Like has already been stated, there's unaccounted for gravity in the universe, something must be responsible. For now, as nobody knows what it is, it's tagged 'dark' matter/energy.

If you want to somehow claim nothing can come from nothing, therefore there must have always been something, or the self-existent source of this universe, cool. That's ostensibly logical reasoning*. However, like dark matter, it would only mean some form of energy, not a (especially personal) god, has always been self-existent. The myriad gods from humanity's religions are particularly ridiculous.

First cause is almost certainly not a conscious intelligence as well. Intelligence is complex, it would be silly to assume complexity existed before simplicity. All across nature, and logically even, it is simple to complex and not the other way round.

So there's no evidence, logical or otherwise, to support a personal god in particular, or a conscious first cause. Logically maybe there is some to support some eternal energy source, but a thinking god? No



*though I don't personally fully subscribe to it, quantum etc seems to have energy showing up from nothing, but I'm no expert. anyways, scientifically we cannot say something cannot come from nothing just yet

This is interesting, see all the science being unleashed on this thread, i don almost lost sef.