0
   

God's existence and existence of virtual particles

 
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 2 Oct, 2020 12:31 pm
All atheists' arguments against God's existing have nothing to do with reasoning, but all to do with sneering at the name of God, and mocking God by conflating God with Zeus - and all now primitive many silly deities of man's stone epoch history.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2020 06:56 am
@Susmariosep,
Susmariosep wrote:

All atheists' arguments against God's existing have nothing to do with reasoning, but all to do with sneering at the name of God, and mocking God by conflating God with Zeus - and all now primitive many silly deities of man's stone epoch history.



Why oh why do you think that the Christian 3 in one god for example is any more real then the silliness of Zeus and such gods?

Sorry but waving your hands in the air and declaring there must be a god does not made any god anymore likely then all the other gods mankind had come up with from the Christian god to the very first gods cavemen had come up with.

Now the claims that the universe must had been created by some all powerful being lead to the question of where did this all powerful creature come from.
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 3 Oct, 2020 11:29 pm
@BillRM,
Dear Bill:

See? You have in your latest post no argument at all that is based on reason, but all sneering and mocking.

Write your post again, without sneering and mocking, that is no way to behave and conduct yourself as a gentleman intellectual.

Minus the sneering and mocking you seem to be completely bereft of any semblance of a homo sapiens, i.e. a live entity with intelligence.

Assume your literate educated character person, and we will exchange ideas on the existence of God, okay?

On honest intelligent productive thinking and writing.

Yes, this post is addressed to you as a homo sapiens, homo (Latin) here means a human person, not the homo (Greek) in homosexual.

Quote:
@Susmariosep,
Susmariosep wrote:
Quote:
All atheists' arguments against God's existing have nothing to do with reasoning, but all to do with sneering at the name of God, and mocking God by conflating God with Zeus - and all now primitive many silly deities of man's stone epoch history.


Why oh why do you think that the Christian 3 in one god for example is any more real then the silliness of Zeus and such gods?

Sorry but waving your hands in the air and declaring there must be a god does not made any god anymore likely then all the other gods mankind had come up with from the Christian god to the very first gods cavemen had come up with.

Now the claims that the universe must had been created by some all powerful being lead to the question of where did this all powerful creature come from.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 4 Oct, 2020 03:01 pm
Dear mankind:


I am still waiting for Bill to return and we two resume our exchange.

Addressing Bill:
When you reply to me, first and foremost, tell me what is your idea of existence, that is the way for us to connect, instead of you sneering and mocking and then resorting to asking foolish questions, all in your impotent campaign to take to flight, instead of honest intelligent productive exchange of ideas with me, in re God exists or not.


ANNEX
Quote:

from Susmariosep Sat 3 Oct, 2020 11:29 pm
- - - - - - - - - - - -

@BillRM,
Dear Bill:

See? You have in your latest post no argument at all that is based on reason, but all sneering and mocking.

Write your post again, without sneering and mocking, that is no way to behave and conduct yourself as a gentleman intellectual.

Minus the sneering and mocking you seem to be completely bereft of any semblance of a homo sapiens, i.e. a live entity with intelligence.

Assume your literate educated character person, and we will exchange ideas on the existence of God, okay?

On honest intelligent productive thinking and writing.

Yes, this post is addressed to you as a homo sapiens, homo (Latin) here means a human person, not the homo (Greek) in homosexual.

Quote:

Susmariosep wrote:
All atheists' arguments against God's existing have nothing to do with reasoning, but all to do with sneering at the name of God, and mocking God by conflating God with Zeus - and all now primitive many silly deities of man's stone epoch history.


Quote:
From Bill

Why oh why do you think that the Christian 3 in one god for example is any more real then the silliness of Zeus and such gods?

Sorry but waving your hands in the air and declaring there must be a god does not made any god anymore likely then all the other gods mankind had come up with from the Christian god to the very first gods cavemen had come up with.

Now the claims that the universe must had been created by some all powerful being lead to the question of where did this all powerful creature come from.


BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2020 05:40 am
@Susmariosep,
When you do not know the answers to all questions not being an all powerful god of some kind it does not solve the problems by making up such a creature out of thin air or out of space for that matter.

The very best that such nonsense can do is to move the questions one step back without adding a damn thing to our understandings.

Once more it did not aid the understanding of lighting bolts by making up stories of gods using them as weapons and the same go for the questions surrounding the states of existence.
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 5 Oct, 2020 11:43 pm
@BillRM,
Dear Bill:

I invite you and me to
Quote:
Addressing Bill:
When you reply to me, first and foremost, tell me what is your idea of existence, that is the way for us to connect, instead of you sneering and mocking and then resorting to asking foolish questions, all in your impotent campaign to take to flight, instead of honest intelligent productive exchange of ideas with me, in re God exists or not.


So, as you will not take courage to do honest intelligent productive thinking, I will volunteer the initiative.

First question we must ask ourselves, Do you, do I exist?

Silly question, you will retort.

Just the same, put into words that you know you exist and HOW you know you exist.
.

Dear everyone reading this post from me, let us all sit back and with bated breath await to witness how Bill will tell us in words: that he knows he exists and HOW he knows that he exists.

0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 6 Oct, 2020 03:26 pm
Do you notice at all, dear readers and also all honest intelligent productive thinkers and writers, Bill has not done the very crucially important task of employing his mind to fathom and write with words, what is existence and HOW he comes to know that he exists.

Okay, I will fathom my mind and tell you, Oh ye readers here and fellow honest intelligent productive posters here, that I know I exist and I know HOW I come to know that I exist.

1. I touch the nose on my face, you all try that also, and there, I know that I exist! And you know that you exist!

2. What about the HOW? The HOW consists in our each one's personal conscious experience of touching our nose, and if you care, touching each other's nose.

Dear everyone, please try to refute your existence and HOW you come to know that you exist, or my brief quick easy in two steps proof from evidence of you and I i.e. we exist.

0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 7 Oct, 2020 01:12 pm
Here is my contribution in one forum on proving God's existence, try to locate it, hint - google existence of God.

Quote:
Dear mankind:

What do you say about my concise clean easy expatiation* to the existence of God from the fact of existence, thus:

1. There is the fact of existence, for example, the nose on our face.

2. There are things with a beginning, for example, you and I.

3. This is my concept of God: God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

4. Things with a beginning owe their existence to ultimately an entity that exists without a beginning, meaning this entity exists from itself, by itself, for itself, in itself, through itself, i.e. this entity is self-existing.

5. Wherefore: God exists in concept as defined in step 3.

6. And the proof is in step 4.

Please dear readers, present your objections or comments.


.

Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 8 Oct, 2020 09:12 pm
@Susmariosep,
Dear readers and everyone posting here in this my thread:

Here again is the OP, see the quote below.

Looking back, my purpose was to ventilate my ideas on God's existence, and motivate atheists to share their ideas on no God - with me, and I hoped that thereby I would get to know more on how they think, as to come to the denial of God existing.

Now we are over four pages of this thread, and I have been satisfied with the contributions of atheists here.

At this point, I feel that I could present this proposal to all fellowmen, namely, on the issue God exists or not, let us all admit that first and foremost there is EXISTENCE, and it is all EXISTENCE for all humans, whether they be folks who accept God, or folks i.e. atheists who deny God to be existing.

That is the only thing that both sides can and must concur on, otherwise both sides would be talking past each other's head, and that is no way at all to get linked up, and thus there is no communication at all, except between two - to all appearances: insane parties.

Recently I decided to really comprehend what Richard Dawkins is talking all about, namely, that there is complexity and there is improbability, etc etc etc, and voilà, it is improbable that God exists.

I really thought about these all categorical statements of Dawkins, and I came to the conclusion that he is into semantic trickery.

For the way I see it, first and before anything else, there is existence, even before you and I and anyone else, he she or it (if there be another animal that is intelligent like us humans) get started: you and I and he she or it have got to be first into the status of existence, it is not with coming from nowhere with already complexity and improbability etc etc etc and voilà, It is improbable that God exists.

Looking back to the OP, I now realize also that the title of the thread is also into first and foremost, starting off with existence, namely, that existence is in a way a big basket, and even God and everything else, God and everything else are all sub-baskets of existence.

So, I have been correct to advocate that God and virtual particles are compatible, even though according to so-called quantum mechanics physicists, they have come to the idea of virtual particles, flitting in and out of existence - Yes, it is still okay with me that they come in and out of existence, because they are stuck up in the big mother basket of existence.

Or to be more correct in a way, virtual parties are all in the mind of the quantum mechanics physicists, and but the minds of these physicists, them minds they exist.

Summing up, on the issue God exists or not, first and foremost, everyone involved in the issue, let us all concur first that we exist, and is that all right with everyone?



Quote:
God's existence and existence of virtual particles

God's
Existence
And
Existence
of
virtual particles


My question is the following:

Are God and virtual particles compatible?

From my own personal self thinking on facts, truths, logic, and the best ideas in the history of mankind, I say YES, they are compatible, because God creates them, that's why.

What do you guys here say?
.

0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Sat 10 Oct, 2020 02:16 am
@BillRM,
Dear Bill and all atheists who are articulate:

I invite you all with me to exchange ideas about your statement as follows below:

Quote:
Now the claims that the universe must had been created by some all powerful being lead to the question of where did this all powerful creature come from.
https://able2know.org/topic/551292-5#post-7064816


You and I guess all articulate atheists ask the question:
"... where did this (God) all powerful creature come from?"

As you ask the question, it is understood that you have some inkling at all what the answer should be or shouldn't be, otherwise you are not saying anything at all that you know something about at all.
.

So, let us all, dear readers here, sit back and await with bated breath to read what Bill and his fellow articulate atheists will bring up, in re my request to him, to answer his own question, or expose himself to be without any inkling at all about what he is talking at all (about).

0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2020 01:16 am
Dear readers:

Atheists have a list of replies to claims of folks who know that God exists, God in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

In the list of replies, more often than not, they don't even know what their replies are all about, they just got their replies from their idolized atheist smart guys, like one Richard Dawkins, smart guys who are good at spinning yarn and yarn of cheap cloth, but when examined carefully, they are all semantic trickery, by which they hoodwink simple folks, and they hope to impress honest intelligent productive thinkers.

In my preceding post here, I brought up one such routinized reply of atheists - like with Bill, he declares thus:
Quote:
Now the claims that the universe must had been created by some all powerful being lead to the question of where did this all powerful creature come from.
https://able2know.org/topic/551292-5#post-7064816


I asked him to explain what he means by the question, "where did this (God) all powerful creature come from?"

I assure you he will not be able to explain at all, and wherefore, as I said earlier, he is like atheists in general, they don't really know what they are talking about, because they just repeat routinized answers they got from their idolized masters of semantic trickery.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 11 Oct, 2020 11:50 pm
I really want to talk with an atheist on a sustained basis, not one that will sooner than later take to AWOL.

I just very much look forward to exchange thoughts with him so that we can concur on things, the more the better, but at least very minimally, even on one thing, like - not being funny though, the existence of nose on our face, or what about I being a guy and I will want to talk with another guy, what about balls between our thighs?

.
What about this succession of thoughts:

1. You and I and he she and it (it refers to in case there is a live entity like us humans, with intelligence and free will) have a nose on our face.

2. Our nose ascertains for us our each one's existence.

3. We do ascertain also that we have a beginning, from our parents.

4. We know of other things with a beginning.

5. In fact all things we know to exist, we know they have a beginning.

6. Our knowledge of all things with a beginning, does it not lead us to conclude that there has got to be an entity without a beginning, i.e. that is not dependent on another entity from which it owes its beginning in existence?

7. You don't accept that? Okay, think up an example of something existing and with a beginning, that does not depend on another thing to have come into existence.

8. At this point I will take a recess and return tomorrow, to see whether someone having read this post of mine, has brought up something with a beginning, that did not depend on another thing to have come into existence.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2020 04:00 pm
@Susmariosep,
LOL my theory is that the god Bastet created humans to take care of her cat subjects.

Quote:
/ʔuːˈβastə/) was a goddess of ancient Egyptian religion, worshiped as early as the Second Dynasty (2890 BCE). Her name also is rendered as B'sst, Baast, Ubaste, and Baset.[3] In ancient Greek religion, she was known as Ailuros (Koinē Greek: αἴλουρος "cat").

Bastet was worshiped in Bubastis in Lower Egypt, originally as a lioness goddess, a role shared by other deities such as Sekhmet. Eventually Bastet and Sekhmet were characterized as two aspects of the same goddess, with Sekhmet representing the powerful warrior and protector aspect and Bastet, who increasingly was depicted as a cat, representing a gentler aspect.[4]
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  0  
Reply Mon 12 Oct, 2020 06:31 pm
So, let's return to my last line of yesterday's post:

8. At this point I will take a recess and return tomorrow, to see whether someone having read this post of mine, has brought up something with a beginning, that did not depend on another thing to have come into existence.

No, no one has brought up something with a beginning but without a cause, and that is a credit to the honest intelligent productive thinking mind of everyone here.
.

Now I will let my imagination play.

I imagine that a die hard atheist will insist that with everything that has a beginning, and then the its cause is in turn with a beginning, thus in need of a preceding cause, and on and on and on endlessly...

So, according to this die hard atheist, we have not yet reached the first cause and will never ever come to any first cause which is not in turn brought into existence by another antecedent cause.

How do I answer my dear die hard atheist?

What about I just remind him that although he is a die hard atheist, sooner than later he will still die, no matter that he is die hard.

And with his death, we all with honest intelligent productive thinking, will no longer have him around and still repeating with his error prone tongue, telling us again and again: the previous cause is an effect which is in need of still its own antecedent cause to come into exxistence, and this is also itself an effect from still another antecedent cause and on and on and on.

That is the sensible way of interacting with die hard atheists, but since we are not into nonsense thinking and writing, there is an intrinsic refutation of such a claim, which is called the infinite regress of effect from cause.

Namely, that we are here, you and I and any he she it exist in fact.

Therefore there is a first cause which is in the series of effect and cause is the last cause that as one US president would put it, "The buck stops here."*

(Dear readers and my good friends, atheists, you don't have to read the materials below, but just for historical curiosity and also for fun.)

*President Truman
But when the decision is up before you -- and on my desk I have a motto which says The Buck Stops Here' -- the decision has to be made." In his farewell address to the American people given in January 1953, President Truman referred to this concept very specifically in asserting that, "The President--whoever he is--has ...
"The Buck Stops Here" Desk sign | Harry S. Truman
See, https://www.trumanlibrary.gov/education/trivia/buck-stops-here-sign

What is the buck?
Buck is an informal reference to $1 that may trace its origins to the American colonial period when deer skins (buckskins) were commonly traded for goods. The buck also refers to the U.S. dollar as a currency that can be used both domestically and internationally.
See, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/buck.asp
0 Replies
 
htam9876
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2020 02:01 am
Piggy hopes all guys long live, but piggy die hard, this is fact.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Tue 13 Oct, 2020 05:23 pm
I really love to have a sustained exchange with any atheist, have I said that already?

But the fact is that they always sooner than later take to AWOL.
.

I have been always reading about quantum mechanics and also relativity, and that the two don't seem to be compatible, and but they are both supposedly grounded on evidence.

That is why I am also always looking for scientists to talk about what is evidence, for free in the net, but to date no scientists have volunteered an explanation of what is evidence, in most particular, what is evidence in science.

I am sorry for myself, but I guess I just have not come to any scientists so learned and honestly intelligently and productively into explanation of what is evidence.
.

So, for myself I will define evidence as to apply my definition to all cases where evidence is sought for, namely:

"Evidence is anything in existence that leads man to know another thing in existence."

An example of evidence: babies and roses in the neighborhood are evidence to the existence of God, in concept as the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

What do you guys here say?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 11:50 am
@Susmariosep,
Here is a amusing idea that been around since at least the 1950s in science fiction books.

Our god could be a teenager with a very powerful computer for example.

Quote:
Scientific American


Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
High-profile physicists and philosophers gathered to debate whether we are real or virtual—and what it means either way
By Clara Moskowitz on April 7, 2016أعرض هذا باللغة العربية
Are We Living in a Computer Simulation?
Credit: Getty Images

NEW YORK—If you, me and every person and thing in the cosmos were actually characters in some giant computer game, we would not necessarily know it. The idea that the universe is a simulation sounds more like the plot of “The Matrix,” but it is also a legitimate scientific hypothesis. Researchers pondered the controversial notion Tuesday at the annual Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate here at the American Museum of Natural History.
Moderator Neil deGrasse Tyson, director of the museum’s Hayden Planetarium, put the odds at 50-50 that our entire existence is a program on someone else’s hard drive. “I think the likelihood may be very high,” he said. He noted the gap between human and chimpanzee intelligence, despite the fact that we share more than 98 percent of our DNA. Somewhere out there could be a being whose intelligence is that much greater than our own. “We would be drooling, blithering idiots in their presence,” he said. “If that’s the case, it is easy for me to imagine that everything in our lives is just a creation of some other entity for their entertainment.”

VIRTUAL MINDS
A popular argument for the simulation hypothesis came from University of Oxford philosopher Nick Bostrum in 2003, when he suggested that members of an advanced civilization with enormous computing power might decide to run simulations of their ancestors. They would probably have the ability to run many, many such simulations, to the point where the vast majority of minds would actually be artificial ones within such simulations, rather than the original ancestral minds. So simple statistics suggest it is much more likely that we are among the simulated minds.

And there are other reasons to think we might be virtual. For instance, the more we learn about the universe, the more it appears to be based on mathematical laws. Perhaps that is not a given, but a function of the nature of the universe we are living in. “If I were a character in a computer game, I would also discover eventually that the rules seemed completely rigid and mathematical,” said Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). “That just reflects the computer code in which it was written.”
Furthermore, ideas from information theory keep showing up in physics. “In my research I found this very strange thing,” said James Gates, a theoretical physicist at the University of Maryland. “I was driven to error-correcting codes—they’re what make browsers work. So why were they in the equations I was studying about quarks and electrons and supersymmetry? This brought me to the stark realization that I could no longer say people like Max are crazy.”
ROOM FOR SKEPTICISM
Yet not everyone on the panel agreed with this reasoning. “If you’re finding IT solutions to your problems, maybe it’s just the fad of the moment,” Tyson pointed out. “Kind of like if you’re a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.”
And the statistical argument that most minds in the future will turn out to be artificial rather than biological is also not a given, said Lisa Randall, a theoretical physicist at Harvard University. “It’s just not based on well-defined probabilities. The argument says you’d have lots of things that want to simulate us. I actually have a problem with that. We mostly are interested in ourselves. I don’t know why this higher species would want to simulate us.” Randall admitted she did not quite understand why other scientists were even entertaining the notion that the universe is a simulation. “I actually am very interested in why so many people think it’s an interesting question.” She rated the chances that this idea turns out to be true “effectively zero.”
Such existential-sounding hypotheses often tend to be essentially untestable, but some researchers think they could find experimental evidence that we are living in a computer game. One idea is that the programmers might cut corners to make the simulation easier to run. “If there is an underlying simulation of the universe that has the problem of finite computational resources, just as we do, then the laws of physics have to be put on a finite set of points in a finite volume,” said Zohreh Davoudi, a physicist at MIT. “Then we go back and see what kind of signatures we find that tell us we started from non-continuous spacetime.” That evidence might come, for example, in the form of an unusual distribution of energies among the cosmic rays hitting Earth that suggests spacetime is not continuous, but made of discrete points. “That’s the kind of evidence that would convince me as a physicist,” Gates said. Yet proving the opposite—that the universe is real—might be harder. “You’re not going to get proof that we’re not in a simulation, because any evidence that we get could be simulated,” said David Chalmers, a professor of philosophy at New York University.
0 Replies
 
htam9876
 
  1  
Reply Wed 14 Oct, 2020 06:08 pm
@Susmariosep,
“I have been always reading about quantum mechanics and also relativity, and that the two don't seem to be compatible, and but they are both supposedly grounded on evidence.”
…………………………..
@ Susmariosep:
The cosmos has two aspects: one is certain aspect and another is uncertain. Newton’s classic and Einstein’s Relativity describes the certain aspect while QM describe the uncertain aspect. For more in depth information, please see piggy’s thread “Wavicle: an old topic” in PHF.
https://physicshelpforum.com/threads/wavicle-an-old-topic.15202/
Piggy has a similar thread in a2k too: macro vs micro in the physics forum.
Perhaps these two threads are the most advanced research in this respect to date.
0 Replies
 
Susmariosep
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 12:26 am
Let us all mankind go to the whole big total entire complete picture of existence.

Everything that scientists of all stripes and nuances work on, they are all part and parcel of existence - including of course the scientists themselves, and you and I and he she it, we are all part and parcel of the whole big total entire complete picture of existence.

Name something at all anything, even just in the mind of scientists, are they or aren't part and parcel of the whole big total entire complete picture of existence?

At this point I submit that anything that we talk about and even just think about even just in our mind, it is part and parcel of the whole big total entire complete picture of existence.

What are your comments, colleagues here, of my message the present one?
htam9876
 
  1  
Reply Thu 15 Oct, 2020 04:39 am
@Susmariosep,
Dear G*, you presents here...
他江门地方黑恶势力钟永康集团及新会一中九一四班姓蔡的万岁,万岁,万万岁!当今时代,全世界没有什么人能够值得如此殊荣。呵呵
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/26/2021 at 12:33:01