Hippyhead, in science, something either exists or does not. There no intermediate. In philosophy there seems to be an intermediate and I cannot conceive of such and thus cannot comment. As a scientist the question is legitimate. As you know, the mind can conceive of many things, most of which do not exist and cannot exist.
Space indeed exists. In the realm of science, there is no question that space exists. Indeed, one dimension of space is time. As you know, we exist in 4 dimensions (there may be more). The location of everything in space/time can be defined by providing 4 dimensional measurements. If one wants to find someone or something, the location needs to be given in 4 dimensions. On Earth, the information may be provided in a simpler and cruder fashion.

God needs to be extremely intelligent to not only provide the right amount of matter/energy but also exactly the right parameters for the Universe to self-assemble as it did. — Marco Colombini

Here's another example of mapping human scale concepts on to infinite scale speculation, a very common theme which seems to infect god topics from top to bottom.

Our concept of intelligence is derived entirely from experience on one tiny planet in one of billions of galaxies. It's a useful concept for comparing humans to other creatures on this planet. How much relevance this very local phenomena has to the rest of the universe (vast beyond comprehension) let alone any gods is completely unknown. Declaring a god to be intelligent makes about as much sense as claiming god has a long white beard. If there is some source of reality which isn't purely mechanical, it's nature is most likely so far different than our own that we wouldn't have words to describe it.

God investigations based on attempts to generate knowledge have been going on for thousands of years, and have been led by some of the greatest minds among us on all sides, and all efforts to demonstrate the existence or non-existence of God have failed to prove anything at all. This should raise the question of how many more centuries do we intend to keep on doing the same thing over and over, while expecting this will somehow someday lead to different results.

Space indeed exists. In the realm of science, there is no question that space exists. — Marco Colombini

*sigh* Space, or spacetime, is a model. Far as I know it mostly works - as a model. But you are wa-ay too quick and facile in reifying your models, and then you're off to the races with nonsense.

180 Proof, the identification of an event that is unexplanable by settled science is not a gap but a big deal. For example changes with time of fundamental constants is a big concern. The fine structure constant of matter may be changing by as much as one part in 10 to the power 17 per year. That is the level of accuracy one worries about. It's not a matter of filling in gaps as is discussed in philosophy but rather of having an understanding of reality that best fits all observations and current knowledge.

I would say that Marco's faith (assuming he has a thing called faith) is the same or similar faith that the atheist has in his/her belief system. — 3017amen

A demonstration in one sentence of two things: 1) there is no accounting for what some people will say, and 2) that for one or many reasons, the writer either does not not understand what he himself is writing, or is so idiosyncratically defining the words as to render them and him nonsensical. Whichever way....

Space indeed exists. In the realm of science, there is no question that space exists. — Marco Colombini

Ah good, then you should be able to tell us how much a cubic mile of space weighs. But you can't, because space has no weight or mass, thus defying our definition of existence. But wait, there is some phenomena between the Earth and Moon or they would be one. So we can't say space doesn't exist either.

We want to shove space in to either the exists or not exists box, because that is how our minds work. But that is not how reality works.

Your argument, like almost all arguments for or against God, is built upon a simplistic dualistic either/or understanding of existence, whose validity is immediately brought in to question by an observation of the vast majority of reality, space.

Once this is understood, all supposedly clever arguments for or against the existence of God come crashing to the ground, and we are left with nothing. Which as it turns out, matches up with the vast majority of reality rather well.

Two-part documentary which deals with two of the deepest questions there are - what is everything, and what is nothing?

Tim Wood, yes it is true that all of our understanding arises from models of reality. The models are generally incomplete descriptions of reality especially in the biological area. Yet these are necessary and quantitative models are extremely useful both to understand the past and predict the future of any process. We rely on these models to understand our universe. That is reasonable otherwise we can just decide not to even attempt to understand all we see. Our understanding of space/time, yes a model, describes reality rather well. An interesting example of how our understanding of space/time is practical. The original satellites that were launched into orbit to produce the global positioning system were designed to work in 2 ways, one using classical physics and the other using relativistic physics. The engineers were not quite sure that moving clocks away from the Earth's gravitational field would cause time to slow down. Guess what happened... relativistic physics was (is) correct. Without that correct model our GPS system would not work properly.

Without that correct model our GPS system would not work properly. — Marco Colombini

Delete "correct" insert "better." And this correction not worth making except as to the point of taking models as real. Unless you have knowledge of the real you'd like to share.

Hippyhead, something does not need to have mass to exist. Photons have no mass. That allows them to travel at the speed of light. If they had mass then they could not travel at the speed of light because at that speed anything with mass would have an infinite mass and thus require infinite energy to reach the speed of light. If the definition of existence includes having mass then the definition is wrong.
How do we know that the mass of a particle increases with speed? Well, when charged particles are accelerated, the mass increases as described by Einstein's equations. In particle accelerators that increase in mass must be considered in order to control the motion of the particle and reach speeds close to that of light.
By the way, mass is not permanent. The collision of a particle and an antiparticle (e.g. electron and a positron) results in total annihilation producing gamma rays that have no mass. Mass is converted to energy as described in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.
Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it.

A demonstration in one sentence of two things: 1) there is no accounting for what some people will say, ...........So I shall make the effort to communicate with you at your level, so that you will understand, no questions necessary. It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid! — tim wood

I agree Timmy, "there is no accounting for what some people say". It (some atheists) does seem to be a little extreme. :lol:

Tim Wood...point well taken regarding correct and better. Semantics is so imprecise. All measurements have errors and thus the time sent from the GPS satellite is "correct" withing some error value. One can argue that the value is merely better. However the use of relativistic physics allows one to obtain values of time as close to exact as possible with the limitations of the errors present in real systems. Given the presence of error one cannot be certain that the theory is indeed a perfect description of reality. However, it is my understanding that within the degree of accuracy achievable, the theory shows no sign of having built-in error.
On further thought, I want to state that non-relativistic physics gives approximate answers that are as accurate as possible under "normal" conditions but is fundamentally wrong for high precision. It is wrong because it does not embody all the necessary properties of the universe. Based on all tests of which I am aware, relativistic physics gives not just better values but actually correct values withing the accuracy that can be achieved. If there is something missing in this theory, there is no sign of it.
There is another aspect to emphasize. There are models that merely mimic the behavior in real life. For example, models of the changes in the stock market try to predict future changes based on the shape of the curve. The relativistic equations were derived to embody quantitatively a property of the universe. That is true quantitative physics as opposed to curve fitting without actually modeling the underlying processes.

With our current level of technology it would be extremely difficult to assemble very large stones of different shapes with extreme precision. Also cutting perfect square holes into hard stone is virtually impossible without modern tools and indeed would be even difficult today. — Marco Colombini

Ah, you don't fool me. That only proves aliens were involved, not God.

something does not need to have mass to exist. Photons have no mass. That allows them to travel at the speed of light. If they had mass then they could not travel at the speed of light because at that speed anything with mass would have an infinite mass and thus require infinite energy to reach the speed of light. If the definition of existence includes having mass then the definition is wrong.
How do we know that the mass of a particle increases with speed? Well, when charged particles are accelerated, the mass increases as described by Einstein's equations. In particle accelerators that increase in mass must be considered in order to control the motion of the particle and reach speeds close to that of light.
By the way, mass is not permanent. The collision of a particle and an antiparticle (e.g. electron and a positron) results in total annihilation producing gamma rays that have no mass. Mass is converted to energy as described in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.
Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it. — Marco Colombini

Nice; subscribed!!
:up:

Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it. — Marco Colombini

Our consciousness is much like that. Consider driving a car while daydreaming then crashing and killing yourself. Was it our conscious or subconscious driving the car allowing ourself to kill ourself(?). In many ways, one could say you were driving and not driving because at the time, you thought that you were not driving, otherwise, you wouldn't have voluntarily crashed and killed yourself.

Consciousness seems to be logically impossible to explain yet is logically necessary for existence. Pardon the pun, but I too wonder if there are other things in life that are logically impossible to explain... ?

How do we know that the mass of a particle increases with speed? — Marco Colombini

It doesn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTJauaefTZM

Tim Wood, that the mass of a particle increases with speed is a well established fact. You can pick up any good physics textbook. There is much misinformation on the web.

Watch the video and learn. You will see that:

It's not p = m x v, rather it's p = γ x m x v.

Or, being ignorant, stay that way and be stupid as well. Your choice.

3017 Amen...thanks. Regarding consciousness, I don't know what is consciousness. My speculation is that it is the soul that is using the brain as an interface into this reality. This is obviously not science.

Ciceronianus the White, I hate to get into the topic of aliens. However, I propose that a civilization that is limited in technology to the use of stones without any mortar or cement would have been smart enough to be creative about the use of stones. To me it shows that these ancients were very intelligent and able to employ methods that we have not thought of because we use other materials.

Regarding consciousness, I don't know what is consciousness. My speculation is that it is the soul that is using the brain as an interface into this reality. This is obviously not science. — Marco Colombini

I understand, it is quite mysterious to say the least. Pretty much transcends many forms of pure/formal logic (as it should be).

I suppose kind of like multiverse speculation, what is your speculation on the so-called soul? What is it, comprised of photons? Though I haven't read any of them, there have been some books regarding the holographic soul, which presumably is based on the holographic principle in physics.

I know it's kind of sci-fi but I wonder how black holes enter into this picture, if you will?

Oh, and don't forget to hit the quote button when you post, that way the other person knows that you've replied by way of their email.

First off, the OP needs to distinguish CLEARLY between philosophy and science. The hybrid he presented at the start is a sleight of hand. How the universe came about is different from why. So, how? The original state of the universe was potentiality and it was its own causality, much like You say God's nature is? Why is the universe here? As Hume might have first pointed out, the reason comes from within the universe and within us. It doesn't have to come from without

, let me start by dealing with energy becoming unavailable and the universe eventually becoming dead as far as living organisms are concerned. I focus on living organisms because of their importance but, in fact, all activity will eventually cease. Every action requires that matter and energy are conserved. However, energy exists in two parts, usable and non-usable energy. Every action converts more energy from the usable to the non-usable form. Eventually all the energy will become non-usable and thus no action can take place. — Marco Colombini

that "usable/ non usable" categorizing is very human centric, practically all types of energy are "usable" to the universe.

s the Universe hostile to life? Yes in a sense it is. However, the fundamental conditions for life to form at all are very difficult to achieve and our science only understands these in a very limited way. For example, if all there was in the Universe is Hydrogen and Helium, life could not possibly exist. A small change in the fundamental constants of the Universe would have that result. If there were no carbon atoms, there would be no life as we know it. — Marco Colombini

Carbon was formed out of Helium and Hydrogen, and how could you prove there would be no life without carbon? this is again a very human centric view, which is flawed, since we cannot imagine a being made differently from us, but you know the funny thing? we are creating a being out of silicon, in the form of AI, life doesn't mean only what's made of Hydrogen Dioxide, it means anything that has the process of living, so it could possibly be made of any material if it is characterized with living.

Again, it is well understood that the amount of carbon is critically dependent on the energetics of subatomic particles. A small change would not allow sufficient carbon to exist for life to form. Even the simplest cell is extremely complicated, relying for survival on the exact amount of interaction energy between its molecular components. In short, it is very easy to get the wrong conditions and have a dead universe. — Marco Colombini

our universe could possibly be considered a dead universe already, if we look at it outside of our perspective, the universe is practically dead, and will be after we die,
this also explains something important, what if life could exist in a different universe but it never survives to be conscious, would that even be accounted as life then?

plus to add the point that you cannot truly imagine or comprehend other types of universes because we can only do so from our own which would be biased/contradictory perhaps

For a poor analogy, consider that it is very easy to assemble something that looks like a car but does not function...anyone could do that. Whereas it is very difficult to produce a working car if one is stranded in an uninhabited island. The information and skills required are enormous.
It is very easy to misuse logic because, unlike mathematics, words and meanings are not precise — Marco Colombini

a car could be easily assembled by anyone, all you need is a lot of wood, and a rope, and it would be semi functional, it takes literal seconds to think of such a solution.

The fact is that the Universe exists and did not exist. Did it come from nothing? All we know is the matter/energy with which we are familiar. Is there other "stuff"? Our senses can only detect our matter/energy so we cannot detect any other stuff. — Marco Colombini

we can scientifically predict other stuff, like dark matter and dark energy, or for example string theory, and so on.
matter logically cannot come from nothing, it always causes a logical contradiction to try to prove so, the essay I linked should be an interesting read on so.

And God's existence is clearly refutable:

1) there are ugly things and ugly acts in this world. God sustains everything, so he sustains child rape as it is happening. This is against his holiness. But God is supposed to keep everything in place? So he does t exist

2) if God's nature were perfect, the world would reflect this. Sure, humans have free will and letting things happen to us can be for a greater good. But what of the suffering of innocent animals. Is God's nature so deficient that he can't create a world and protect innocent animals at the same time?

Q.E.D

Are there many Gods? The only information on that matter comes not from science but from statements attributed to God. — Marco Colombini

I am assuming, maybe wrongly, that you mean the Bible. Well, the Bible says Jesus paid for our sins. The price for our sins was billions of people in the eternal furnace. Jesus suffered for three hours. So that theology is wrong. Also, the idea of an innocent man taking our punishment has God the Father saying "well at least SOMEBODY suffered pain because of these sins!!!". It's scapegoating. So again, the Bible is wrong

If you want to believe in Super Daddy and his son Superman, that's ok. Just don't tell us we have to believe in him too. I have a real dad and I love him. That's plenty of daddyness for me. You don't have to shroud the whole universe in fatherhood

Tim Wood...Ok, the person on the video is very reputable. Yes indeed relativistic mass is what increases. Now that becomes a semantic argument. What is that gamma term? The gamma term is the way speed affects the mass of the object. Thus factoring out that part it just leaves you with the rest mass. It's a bit of deception in my opinion. In scientific publications physicists talk about rest mass and measured mass of a particle at a particular speed. Clearly not everyone likes this. The author of the video to which you refer has a valid argument. Relativistic speed cannot be used to determine gravitational attraction. Well gravity, according to Einstein is the distortion of space. Mass distorts space thus causing objects to move together. A rapidly moving particle may distort space asymmetrically so that the distortion in the direction of a passing planet is not the same as the distortion in the direction of motion. Alternatively, the property that causes space to distort is proportional to the mass but unrelated to it. Photons are attracted to a massive objects even though they have no mass. This is the famous experiment in which a solar eclipse is used to observe that the position of stars whose light is passing close to the Sun look as if they have shifted in position because the light is bent just slightly. The bending is proportional to the energy of the photon or the "mass equivalent". Note that the classical gravitation equation does not work in this case either because the real mass is zero for the photon. The bottom line to which everyone can agree is that no particle with any mass can travel at the speed of light because it would require infinite energy. Thus photons have no mass but still exist...otherwise you could not see.

3017amen

...thanks, I was not aware of the quote button

Gregory

I'm a scientist. Historically scientists and philosophers were one and the same. My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.). The separation in recent times is unfortunate. I apologize for not addressing your concerns but I'd like to keep the focus elsewhere.

I'm a scientist. Historically scientists and philosophers were one and the same. My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.). — Marco Colombini

So you are not a scientist but a philosopher. And one who is not very good at his job. True philosophers see things from every angle in order to see what possibly could be true. You are obviously myoptic. Above I clearly gave an alternative to theism, then I clearly refuted theism, and I clearly refuted Christianity. What do you say then?