I don't understand why religions don't embrace Astrophysicists' findings that...

[Viva_Daddy]

96% of the PHYSICAL universe is INVISIBLE. Maybe the 96% figure is just too much for them, but it would seem to be "evidence" that the VAST MAJORITY of what we call "the Universe" is beyond our perception and just as well could be called "God" as anything else.

[orpupilofnature57]

1. I believe in Jesus, and I pay homage to

Carl Sagan .

[dimbear]

2. Dark matter and dark energy are unverified theories. They're likely to go the way of

phlogiston and the luminiferous aether. Relgions need to stick with concepts that can never be falsified or verified. It's traditional.

[mjrr_595]

6. well stated

[skepticscott]

8. I wouldn't put it that way at all

In the first place, if something in science isn't supported and verified by a considerable amount of evidence, it can't be said to have risen to the level of a "theory". While there is very good evidence that something that we can't see directly is out there, based on effects we can see, we have no solid idea of its nature. The terms "dark matter" and "dark energy" are simply convenient placeholders that we use to talk about that "stuff" until we have a better grasp of them.

[DetlefK]

3. Stupidest remark I have heard in days.

1. "Invisible" means "undetectable by electromagnetic interaction". There are many more methods available to find Dark Matter and Dark Energy.

2. Your suggestion is: "Here's something I don't understand. You should regard this as your god."
I'm an agnostic and skeptic towards religion, but this attitude is downright insulting.

3. I'm not interested in a deeper theological discussion, so I'll keep this point short: Your idea to equate a scientific fact (or lack thereof) with a divine being (with its theological, spiritual, social, cultural and historic aspects) shows a deep lack of understanding for religious people and for the important contrast between knowing and believing.

4. So you generously give those 96% of the universe to the religious people to worship. What are we supposed to do when we finally understand Dark Matter?
"Oops, sorry. But, hey, you still may use 70%!"
Mixing science and religion NEVER works. The philosophical differences are just too big. Coexistence yes, but the aim to use conflation as a method of reconciliation is totally misguided.

[cbayer]

4. What makes you think religions don't embrace that?

Don't most rely on concepts which they would say are invisible to humans? It seems entirely consistent.

[cleanhippie]

10. There is a difference between invisible and imaginary.

[Alter2Ego]

5. Things that were created are not the Creator.

ALTER2EGO -to- VIVA DADDY:

In your OP you stated: "...the VAST MAJORITY of what we call "the Universe" is beyond our perception and just as well could be called "God" as anything else."" I disagree. That's like saying the creator of the computer is named computer. The reality is that the person who created the computer is separate and distinct from the computer he/she created.

[Silent3]

7. Why should God be whatever lies beyond our perception?

That's a pretty poor conception of God if God is merely anything we can't see or don't understand.

If your point is about the fact that there's obviously a lot that we don't know about, why should the likelihood of God increase in proportion to the scope of our ignorance? The less we understand, the more we need a God to explain things?

No. The less we understand the less we're qualified to decide for or against the existence of poorly defined entities. Some people might call the resulting position agnosticism, but since that leaves no particular God to actively believe in, I call that position atheism.

[skepticscott]

9. It's the conception of "god"

that has become more and more popular among academics and the like who are unable to live their lives without something,anything that they can call "god", but who are increasingly embarrassed to profess belief in the utterly unsupported and myth-based god concepts of most major religions. So they just continually morph their version of "god" into whatever form they think will render their belief in it immune from criticism and ridicule.