Just keeping it real. :wink: — Banno

Heheh, but it is really false to consider that the instantaneous existence any paticular objective quality is dependent upon a subjective qualia. We must assume that in the absence of some natural change, the physical qualities which have the capacity of producing particular subjective experience as we regard them, continue to exist after we have ceased to regard them. To consider any differently is to consider the universe as being irrational. I agree it's fun to play the devil's advocate, though. The foregoing, of course, does not pertain to the consideration of the existence of God, though, since that involves neither subjective qualia, nor objective quality, but rather appears to involve imagination only.

Physics deals with force and energy as well as matter, and these are non-physical, yet assumed by physicists to exist — Michael Zwingli

You're selling I see. Unfortunately, I'm not buying.

I'm not buying. — TheMadFool

Pray tell. At your leisure, of course (it is quite early where I am...dealing with a bit of insomnia).

Sapere aude!

Physics deals with force and energy as well as matter, and these are non-physical, yet assumed by physicists to exist. — Michael Zwingli

Matter, force, and energy non-physical? They are as physical as it can get! And existent.

Sapere aude! — TheMadFool

:party:

Sapere aude! — TheMadFool

Quid sapere debeam, in re eius causae?

Matter — GraveItty

Extstent and physical, agreed.

force, and energy — GraveItty

Existent, but surely not physical. Hold out a piece of force for me to examine... These thing appear able to influence physical objects, while not being physical themselves. I think that we are using "physical" in differing senses: you as meaning "pertinent to the study of (mechanical) physics", and I as meaning "materially objective" (or perhaps "objectively material"?).

It is true that science and logic cannot disprove God, but, on the other hand, science and logic cannot prove God's existence. There was Anselm's ontological argument, but it probably falls short of its' claim because all it really shows is that God is an idea in the human mind. If it logic was followed, it would be possible to argue that all possibilities conceived by humans exist independently of the human mind.

Quid sapere debeam, in re eius causae? — Michael Zwingli

Aahm..."What is it that I should know concerning this matter?"

Existent, but surely not physical. — Michael Zwingli

I can hold a bottle of photons in front of you, or a magnet. Force fields are virtual particle fields. Though virtual, very real. A photon is a real manifestation of its virtual vacuum state. A real charged particle is surrounded by a virtual cloud of force mediating particles (don't confuse virtual with non-real though). These virtual surrounding fields can get real when real charged particles interact with other charges particles. Like real photons.

They don't? I would say that belief in such an incoherent notion was pretty much ruled out by science and logic. Of course there are plenty of ad hoc arguments in his favour, but they are far from convincing. — Banno

Yes but your incoherent notion is only one description of such an entity. Of course science and logic have discredited a giant bearded man flying around in the clouds. However there are many more scientific/ philosophically intuitive versions of the concept of “god”. For example things in physics that are indestructible, the properties of energy, the logic and order inbuilt into how the universe functions, the existence of consciousness, emotions etc. I’m not saying god must be a person but it’s not unreasonable to imagine that consciousness and the universe are the same thing or that it is a fundamental quality of existence. And if it does turn out the entire universe is a conscious, self- emerging, auto-evolving system that defines and refines its own laws, constantly creates and destroys ...then I would say that’s pretty godly.

Though virtual, very real...don't confuse virtual with non-real... — GraveItty

Um... Virtual - (1) In effect or essence, if not in fact or reality; imitated, simulated; (2) Having the power of acting or of invisible efficacy without the agency of the material or measurable part; potential.

Is "real" synonymous with "physical"? More to the point, is "physical" not synonymous with "material"?

As for a photon, it is a quantum of electromagnetic energy which may be, and is useful to physicists when considered as a particle, but is in actuality not a particle of matter. A photon has no "rest mass". You could not hold a bottle full of photons, because photons would not be contained by the bottle, and in fact, there are no actual things called photons to be contained by the bottle. A photon is but a measure of energy. In this, holding a "bottle of photons" would be akin to holding a "bottle of inches".

I mean virtual in the sense of opposite to real particles. Real particles have a fixed energy momentum relation, as in classical mechanics Virtual particles lack this property. Giving rise to the strangeness of QM. In a sense all particles are virtual, hence real.

Interesting posts ladies and gents. I would argue that both science and logic can and do ‘prove’ gods existence. Although an element of faith must remain for the third leg of the tripod the stand. God gives us the first two legs but we must provide the third. Does anyone else think science actually confirms the bible?

As for a photon, it is a quantum of electromagnetic energy which may be, and is useful to physicists when considered as a particle, but is in actuality not a particle of matter. A photon has no "rest mass". — Michael Zwingli

A photon is pure potential energy. It has no mass indeed, but so can matter particles, possessing real non-potential energy. That is, kinetic energy. Realized by the potency of the photon.

Real particles have a fixed energy momentum relation, as in classical mechanics Virtual particles lack this property. Giving rise to the strangeness of QM. In a sense all particles are virtual, hence real. — GraveItty

Haha, this may be above my pay grade.

. I would argue that both science and logic can and do ‘prove’ gods existence. — Robbie84

Prove in what sense? Don't you think the very existence of existence is proof?

I would argue that both science and logic can and do ‘prove’ gods existence. — Robbie84

In a sense...the consideration of "God" both scientifically and logically proves the existence of God as an idea, but no more...certainly not of God as a real entity.

Haha, this may be above my pay grade. — Michael Zwingli

Don't laugh! I'm serious...

:smile:

It is true that science and logic cannot disprove God, but, on the other hand, science and logic cannot prove God's existence. — Jack Cummins

Yes, um...well said.

Don't laugh! I'm serious... — GraveItty

I only laugh because you may have just exceeded my understanding of Physics, is all. Even so, I still maintain that ["physical" = "material"] ≠ "real". There exist real things which are immaterial, and which are material to our discussion for their being real. :grin:

There exist real things which are immaterial, and which are material to our discussion for their being real. :grin: — Michael Zwingli

That's exactly what I think. This immaterial stuff resides inside of matter. It's it charge, of which physicists, like myself have absolutely exactly and positively zero understanding. No physicist can explain to you what electric charge or hyper color charge is. You can say that it's a vibration of strings, of closed ones (gravity and mass) or open ones (the other 3 forces and 7 charges) in an abstract 6D Calabi-Yau manifold (by string physicists wrongly claimed as a curled up extension of the wide 3d space). Or however, but you will always shift the question. Concluding that basically it's immaterial. Charge settles on the inner. A kind of duality indeed. But hey, aren't there two realities? A mental one and a physical one? United by means of our bodies? The last beings basically our identity?

, I still maintain that ["physical" = "material"] ≠ "real". There exist real things which are immaterial, and which are material to our discussion for their being real. :grin: — Michael Zwingli

The real material we are talking here consists of the immaterial content of matter and the potentiality of the mediating fields, which contains no charge (though in the color charge domain, the mediating potential, the gluons can itself contain charge, so mental and matter are one at the base level of physics), as photons are charge neutral, not possessing it.

In order to discuss God's existence you need to agree on some of its traits.

The real material we are talking here consists of the immaterial content of matter and the potentiality of the mediating fields, which contains no charge (though in the color charge domain, the mediating potential, the gluons can itself contain charge, so mental and matter are one at the base level of physics), as photons are charge neutral, not possessing it. — GraveItty

Now, my lack of a college education (I suppose) is coming into play. Indeed, "...photons are charge neutral, not possessing it" is the only of your statements which I know and understand.

Em, sorry to be arguing Physics with a physicist, BTW...kinda like arguing slapstick comedy with this guy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curly_Howard
I can hear myself now: "Look, Jerry, all the 'nyuk nyuk nyuk' stuff is just never gonna fly..."

In order to discuss God's existence you need to agree on some of its traits. — Cidat

Indeed. I don't think, as is here assumed, and more general in the Bible, Tora, and Khoran, that God is infinite in all three qualities, power, knowledge, and Goodness. Giving rise to a kind of disturbing picture.

I thought more physicists would be present here. It's kinda frustrating.

makes your contributions all the more valuable. Philosophy is diminished without a foundation of precise knowledge. There was another fellow on here, called himself "Prishon", who I think might have been a physicist. He often included opinions in posts which would seem to make that apparent. Unfortunately, he has left the site because of certain...issues.

I was just watching Leonard Cohen and his friends sing a spontaneous round of "Do Lord" in some home movies from a documentary, and the feeling was moving. I think that, even if God does not exist, the belief that people have in something, to the extent it is sincere, works towards bring that something into existence. So even if it is just people aspiring to the divine, I think you have to give the idea of God some credence.