Because I don’t “believe” in gravitons. I accept them as the current accepted explanation that is supported by replicable inquiry and I expect that at some point our scientific knowledge will require us to modify or supersede that explanation forma better one. I don’t believe in belief.
One can devise, even if only in a thought experiment, an experiment that could disprove gravitons. One cannot devise, in a universally applicable way, an experiment that would disprove God.
Or psychic elves.
Wait, where did Voyager declare a belief in gravitons? Or even hypothesize about gravitons?
In the event that I’m taking you more literally than you intend, and you are merely noting that a hypothesis exists, please explain how a hypothesis, which is subject to investigation (and subject to being discarded in favor of a superior hypothesis) equates to the faith in the Abrahamic God you’ve been describing yourself as holding.
What investigations are you conducting (or even following) as to the validity of that God?
even so, the moon certainly isn’t ‘ruling’ the day, since the sun is much brighter.
With gravitons one can create a hypothesis and test it. Someone talked about the ether earlier in the thread. That is a great example. Michelson and Morley thought that if the ether existed they would be able to measure the speed of light in different directions and see a difference in the speed of light. Turned out that the speed was the same regardless of orientation.
Now compare that to God. What predictions can you make about God that are testable? If you believe in the power of prayer to heal, you can test that by comparing people who are and are not being prayed for. Some predictions about God have been shown to be false: the earth is not 6,000 years old, the fossil record shows that animals were not created all at once, the Sun does not revolve around Earth, etc.
Now you can use the word ‘God’ to refer to something that is outside the universe and whose properties are not only unknown but unknowable, but what use is that? If you can’t point to any phenomena that demonstrates behavior in a manner that is inconsistent with what we would expect from random chance and the known physical laws then what difference does it make? In other words, if there is no difference in X existing and X not existing, then X doesn’t have much descriptive value.
Scientific things are testable, by definition. Non-scientific things are not testable. Belief in Deity is simply that, a belief. Were it subject to proof, it would be a theory. Were it ever proved it would be a fact.
That’s nice. But people are responding to statement you have made.
So . . . you’re answering your own question, right?
Yep, my belief is untestable. Your belief is testable. Perfectly true.
Hypotheses are not beliefs. You still have it wrong.
Which belief? No one here said they believe in gravitons.
Which makes your belief basically worthless, except as wish fulfillment. Hey, it would make me feel better to think every woman I met was mad with desire for me, but I would be an idiot to act as if that was reality.
It depends on how you judge ‘worth,’ doesn’t it? It seems obvious that a belief is worth something to me if it provides me happiness. Please explain how that value is non-existant.
It has no explanatory value. It conveys no information. It’s fantasy. I suppose that it can be argue that fantasy has the kind of recreational/escapist value that you’re referring to, but it offers no practical utility in terms of actually understanding or predicting anything about the universe.
So although it helps me is ‘worthless?’ I believe that was the contention.
No, your contention was that it is similar to the beliefs of one or some of us atheists, but you keep moving the goalpost.
It’s worthless to anybody but you. How about if we put it that way?
If my belief makes me a better person, then obviously it would have value to others too, wouldn’t it?
Are you saying you would not treat other people the same way if you didn’t have those beliefs?