"Exchanging energies" means to be able to interact with the material. If something 'mysterious' is inert or of a distinct and separate category, then it's as if it isn't even there. If not, then it's material, too, since it can interact.

So, no 'intangible', 'non-physical', etc., affecting us and we back. 'Supernatural' would thus seem to be out and not there, or if it is then never the twain shall meet.

There's no 'space' as nonphysical. The quantum fields exhaust reality. "All is field", as Einstein claimed. There is also no space as something separate from the fields that is just there to hold the fields. — PoeticUniverse

Again, exchanging energies between matters sounds vague and ambiguous. It doesn't sound like a philosophical, logical or scientific statement at all.

I could have understood better if it said "communicating", "having conversation", "engaging" or "making use of". But then these are terms for actions or events between some beings with linguistic abilities or at least the animals with emotional and intelligent communication capabilities.

I have re-read above post a few times just trying to grasp what it actually means, but you have lost me. Exchanging energies between immaterial and material subjects sounds and all the rest of it, just don't make sense because it is abstract and empty in the content, and is hard to imagine what it could actually be in real life. Do you have any real life examples for these events?

Not "randomly" promoting.

Quantum Field Theory is the most successful, accurate, and important Theory in the history of science, giving us the Standard Model and a myriad of devices that work.

The quantum fields accord with Derrick’s points in his OP, and further inform us in physical actuality of labels and associations that have been also used for ‘God’. — PoeticUniverse

The OP was not trying to prove God using quantum physics.  If you read the OP again, it starts with Non Existence and its meaninglessness.  The OP is based on philosophy of logic, not quantum physics.  Then OP talks about space, and its properties before going into God and proof.

I think trying to trust everything qp says blindly feels irrational.  It can fall into the trap of trusting anything a famous person said, scientist said or science said.  The tendency itself can degrade into some sort of pagan religion.

Since the quantum fields are already fundamental, the hypothesis for ‘God’ would want to attend to that. — PoeticUniverse

I am not sure if that statement is correct. What do you mean by "fundamental"? In what sense? What is non fundamental?

(yes, I know you hate the word infinite). I argue that power to create is greater than power to destroy, and destruction ultimately takes away power the more it is enacted thus it wouldn't be a principle of omnipotence. In this way, the Christian notion that we are eternal makes sense, regardless if good or bad (aimed at destruction). — Derrick Huestis

It is not that I don't like "infinite", but I just cannot find anything which is infinite in the real world. :)
So when someone says "infinity" or "eternity", I just wonder what it is denoting. Is it poetry? Or is it some rhetoric? But I usually understand it as verbal expressions for the emotions of a long and unmeasurable length of time for the subject who used the words.

As said earlier, destruction shouldn't be regarded always as bad. Because before you build or create something, you might need to destroy what has been the past, and the presence, in order to clear and make space to build or create the new afresh.

We can own the idea or concept even if we don't own the manifestation of said concept. This is what philosophers do. Questioning why someone would own, discuss, and argue for a concept they see manifest in the real world could be easily turned into a question of why you might be on a philosophy forum. There is some emotional element to many of your posts, untangling them from the logic requires a bit of work. — Derrick Huestis

Sure, one can own any idea one wants. It is the freedom of one's imagination and thought. But it is one thing to own the blank concepts, and totally different thing altogether actually to draw some imaginative conclusions from them when there are no logical or tangible connections.

Yes. The immaterial can’t exchange energy with the material unless they speak each other’s language, but if they can, then there is no distinct category of immaterial at play in the first place. — PoeticUniverse

The suggestion was to define the nature of your God in its substance. Is it physical, spiritual or conceptual? Or non physical something like space? I am not sure what exchanging energies mean. Could you please elaborate on that, if relevant. Thanks.

The temporaries come and go; the Fundamental Existence of the quantum fields remains. — PoeticUniverse

I am not sure if randomly promoting the quantum fields to the Fundamental Existence has any meaning when the OP has been trying to prove God.

There is no ‘coming from’ for what is eternal. — PoeticUniverse

"Eternal" "Eternity" "Infinity'' and "Forever" are another concepts which have been misused for a long time.  They come from the adverbs "eternally" and "infinitely" which are just expressing one's emotion for denoting a long time.  Eternity, forever and infinity don't exist in the real world.    

If one is truly wanting to use the concept of eternity and infinity, then he must still be out there in the field counting the time until it really ends.  And then when the time had indeed ended, he could then start using the terms, because he had then experienced and witness the true eternity and infinity. But then if it had ended, then it is no longer eternity or infinity.

So realistically, eternity and infinity doesn't exist. They are just figments of one's imagination.
But just sitting in a room when the time is still ticking on, eternity and infinity must not be used as if it is something that one owns like a table or chairs. Plainly doing so is just plainly illogical. They are just emotional expressions in linguistic terms.

Can there be a distinct and separate intangible category such as called 'spiritual' which cannot walk the walk and talk the talk of the materiel? If so, it can't interact with us and so it just goes along its separate and merry way.

Anyway, there’s no big wondering required for where things came from. Existence isn’t optional; it is mandatory because ‘nonexistence’ cannot be, much less be productive. — PoeticUniverse

Every existence is optional and contingent.   Because existence is not included in the subject.  It is a mere predicate of a subject.  That means, all existence can be negated without contradiction. Even space is contingent existence.  If you put down a physical object anywhere, then the space the object occupies will disappear. No more space.

A building is in the town centre. It can disappear any day, when they demolish it for build a road through it. Gone. No more.

But physical existence means that it is visible, touchable, audible and perceivable.  It also takes up a location in space, so you can go and see it. When this is not possible, it is not physical existence.  Trying to assert an invisible, inaudible, untouchable, and un-perceivable object as some existence is irrational.

We'd first have to show Him to be, and then identify His nature, and then get at His purpose, although He appears to be an unnecessary step to posit in the first place, for Existence has to be. and that's that, end of story, not needing anything extra. — PoeticUniverse

I feel that first you have to define whether the divine being is physical, spiritual or conceptual in its nature.

If the being is spiritual or conceptual in nature, then trying to prove him via physical methods would just end up in categorical mistakes.

R.L. Burnside: See My Jumper Hanging On the Line (1978)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_DOnKJ232M

Samuel Lightnin' Hopkins - The Blues

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HbJiriEol44

Have no fear though, for He's not at all like his portrayal in the Old Testament. — PoeticUniverse

So what is the purpose of his existence?

You took the words right out of my mouth...(it must have been while we were ki..) ☺ — VincePee

:strong: :pray:

The Great Scientist Deity sits back in his plush chair to watch this long great adventure movie or soap opera that He's never seen before… — PoeticUniverse

And does he also sends texts using his mobile phone, and watching TVs, drinking beer, while reading his comic books and mags, while taking a break from playing the online games? :rofl:

I personally see the word omniscience as a tricky word, and there is a reason this has been used as a way to attack the concept of "God." .....

I then study this opposite version and hold my head high at my "knowledge." But you, who realise it is just the opposite of what you were lecturing on, say "it isn't knowledge." I reply, "you think knowing bad things is knowledge, and this is a bad thing, therefore by your own definition I have knowledge!" — Derrick Huestis

Here we are not trying to attack the concept of God, but rather trying to clarify the concept of "omni" p.p.s.

Omnipotence, omnipresent and omniscience seem contradictory concepts which are problematic. Because any being with these attributes doesn't seem to exist in the real world.The contradictory attributes also mutually restrict the properties themselves and definition of God.

All depends on how narrow or wide your definitions of the attributes are, but omniscient beings must know not only everything that has happened, happening and will happen in the universe, but also whys, hows and ifs and whens.  If not, the being is not omniscient.

Good or bad is just one's judgement or feeling on something or event.  Nothing to be worried about in knowing or unknowing something in good or bad terms.  It is a factual capacity or state to know something, be it good or bad, and facts of the knower, when the knower knew or un-knew something.

I wouldn't use the term "bad" to explain it, but there is an obvious contradiction if omnipotence is used to remove omnipotence thus establishing the reality that the being doesn't truly have omnipotence...In other words, the greatest power is to create, destruction is a lesser power, creating can go on indefinitely but there are only so many things you can destroy--it is no surprise here that in Christianity, the Devil who opposes God strives to destroy all things... — Derrick Huestis

Surely omnipotence means it can do both good and also bad too, but if the omniptencer is a divine being, then it would not do bad.  That is just a logic from the definitions.  However divine being seems also denying / restricting  the definition of omnipotence.  It follows that omnipotence and divinity seem clashing / restricting properties of each other.

To create something, the old negative things must be destroyed first. It cannot always be looked at as destruction is evil and creation is good.  It is not some morality issue. You are looking at it from your moral point of view and making judgements on the process or events of the divine.

What is the definition of "devil"? Does it exist? Can you prove the existence?

More points to follow ....

This is the definition of magic. For those who believe the greater existence has free will and can choose to completely ignore you if it chooses, then the way to go about this is prayer which may or may not be answered. — Derrick Huestis

If that is the case, then it sounds like a being with some emotional problems deciding to ignore his seekers by irrational freewill. (How do you prove the omnipresent being also has freewill?)
Why should you pray to a irrational emotive being who would hide away and ignores you with no reason?

Omnipresence is really meaningful when the subject is visible and contactable whenever required
— Corvus

You can only see what is finite and exists separate from you, so whatever is truly omnipresent extends everywhere so you could never go outside it and never see or contact it externally, everything must occur within it. — Derrick Huestis

Surely if a being is omnipresent, then it must be both inside and outside of the perceiver, and the perceiver should be able to feel what is inside the perceiver, if unable to see the omnipresent hidden inside the perceiver, and surely what is outside of the perceiver must be seen and perceived?

If the cube moves, then the space inside the cube moves also, thus it is not technically the same space. It is the same amount of space, yes, but not the same space technically speaking. For example, if that cube is in New York, it is a space in New York. If in Boston, then a space in Boston, etc. And, if we simply chose to demolish the cube, the same space still exists, just now without the cube, it can't be demolished with the cube... — Derrick Huestis

  I think you need to clarify more in detail what you mean by undivided in "undivided existence" before going into "all encompassing" too.  Is undivided meaning impossibility and immunity of physically separating, or enclosing, or totally severing off and detaching one part from the chunk of the whole part? Or does it mean something else?

When you say something is all encompassing, it suggests the all encompassing subject is later than the object what is encompassed in time, because an object must exist first before something can encompass around it, unless again encompassing means something else. This sounds like "all encompassing" is some sort of a posteriori and artificial plastic blanket rather than religious or something divine nature, would you not agree?

From my witness of death of my father in the hospice, it was very painful process going into death. It was not some sort of momentary event. It was slow and gradual, sometimes up and down condition of the physical health, and deterioration of the mind into the demise.

I am not sure what happens after one's death, but it was evident that the process of death was very slow and painful prolonged suffering of months for the dying.

Of course, each and every death is different. But some can be long lasting painful process before the actual death.

An argument is the most basic complete unit of reasoning, an atom of reason. - Baggini

Omnipresence is really meaningful when the subject is visible and contactable whenever required, omnipotence doing and manifesting the right things (divine beings cannot perform bad things by definition?) when required no matter how impossible, and omniscience telling us what is right from wrong, good from bad, and all the controversial topics such as being able to answer how the universe had been created, if it had, what happen to living beings when dead etc. No?

These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And perpetual change through creativity: omnificent.
-add to this the fact that it must encompass all time: eternal, and you get all the labels attributed to God
-thus, the notion of God can be grasped from a purely logical standpoint. — Derrick Huesits

Omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience are only meaningful real attributes, if a subject with such attributes demonstrates omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience in action in front of us any time when asked. 

When the subject has not been coming forward to show it for thousands of years, and when it is impossible to locate for any ordinary living being, a subject who are with the attributes no matter how hard looking and searching every corner of the world for thousands of years, then should we not conclude that there is no such a being with such attributes existing?

Undivided existence would have the attribute of "all encompassing" among other things. Perhaps a fun mind game here would be to talk about holes in the fabric of space--something some scientists have proposed as a hypothesis. A hole in space would have no space, so it would be a hole 0 units wide by 0 units tall. Similarly, a "break" in time would encompass no time, so it would be a break of 0 seconds and no fraction. — Derrick Huestis

Shouldn't the space inside a totally sealed cube, container or ball be regarded as divided (separated) space from the outer space?

-things are separated by things which are not of the same type, so the only thing that could separate existence itself would be nonexistence which cannot exist, thus there must be one undivided existence — Derrick Huesits

I don't understand how you came up with the idea of 'one undivided existence' from nonexistence. Could you elaborate the possible connection between them please?

-this undivided existence must carry all the attributes labeled above. These attributes, when defined as being all-encompassing, define all the omni's associated with God: omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient. And perpetual change through creativity: omnificent. — Derrick Huesits

I fail to see logical linkage between those attributes, "defined as all-encompassing" and the undivided existence. Where does this inference come from?

What does "all-encompassing" mean in the real world ?

Thanks. — Banno

:nerd: :wink:

I thank you for languages which enable me say thank you.

My point is the familiar one, that it can't be made well-formed. That is, it is ungrammatical.

Existence can be treated as a second-order predicate, as in ∃(x)f(x); non-existence might be the negation: ~∃(x)f(x). But you would treat non-existence as a property, and then attribute that property to nothing - or something like that.

It's not even a contradiction. — Banno

:100: :up:

Space and time must not be classed as physical object or nothingness. They should be classed as non physical objects, which are a priori, because they are universal and necessary condition for all the objects and events in the universe.

we are just left with space. But space is still a thing, so as long as we only talk the material it poses no issue for us. — Derrick Huesits

I used to think space is not a thing like usual physical objects. It is an object but non physical, because it cannot be seen and touched. Space is not nothingness either. As you say, it exists and affects us.

So it is rather a precondition of all the physical objects, which can be classed as a priori object, and its property is emptiness. The problem seems that we only think about either physical objects or nothing.
But there must be non physical objects such as space and time, and they exist as precondition of all the physical objects in the universe.

Time is another non physical object, in that we cannot see, hear or touch, but it exists. It affects us, its property is that it is in non reversible with futuristic motion and it is the precondition of all events in the universe.

Life is a mortgage taken out from the universe, that will be squared with old age and death, or death.

Dance Wherever You May Be, even if not a Shaker :party:
— Amity

The dance can reveal everything mysterious that is hidden in music, and it has the additional merit of being human and palpable. Dancing is poetry with arms and legs.

Charles Baudelaire :wink:

Correct. Death doesn’t exist. It is an illusion. It is not a real state. — Dante

So then we agree. — Dante

:ok:

Correct, we are not dealing with “something”, we are dealing with a lack thereof.

Extract from another site:

“ Assumption: An object has no properties. — Dante

Wouldn't it be that because you are now thinking about death and applying the concept "none" to death, it looks as if it is something that doesn't exist or some state which is non state?

One's death itself would mean, no perception, so there would be no possibility to perceive anything, not even the concept of "none".

Other people will perceive and remember the dead, but it would be just the body, not the state of none existing consciousness or the state of death of the dead.

It would be only possible to postulate immortality of souls, if only if one enters the realm of religion such as Christianity or Kabbalah. In the realm of reason, death is final, nothing to perceive or explain, because it is indeed none existence which has no quality or property. None existence means none existence, nothing less or more.

Or you could say that the primary quality is that it lacks any tangible quality. A void. An absence. — Dante

Due to illogical attributes of none as the property of none existence, you come to the wrong conclusion that all death are same. I feel that it doesn't make sense.

You started the pointless semantics initially in the middle of the discussions, and I am trying to clarify on the points. If it is an adverb, then it modifies verb, adjective or another adverb. It still cannot qualify as properties or qualities of something.

"None" is like that, it, they, he, she ... a pronoun, not a perceivable qualia.

To be a property of something, I would have thought, it should be either primary or secondary quality which can be sensed. No?

Another point is "None" is a pronoun like he she that or these. It cannot be a property of something.

A non existent apple has the same properties of a non existent banana, which is none. Non existent things share the fact that they have no properties. — Dante

has the same properties — Dante

they have no properties. — Dante

Contradictory statements for non existent things.

Reason is what the show is all about. — Mww

:100: :up: