God's existence and existence of virtual particles

I don't read Chinese.
.

Now, back to my theory of everything which is existence.

Consider that our scientists today, they are so very busy and productive with so much verbiage, trying to get deeper and deeper into the ultimate components of the universe, and also into higher and higher and higher space to seek for more things in outer space, but they eschew asking themselves, what is the total complete entire whole full picture of reality?

Scientists in Europe I imagine, they want more and more and more money to expand the Large Hadron (particle) Collider, in order to get to more subatomic particles, and speculate on what?

Like how the nose on their face or with guys the balls between their thighs don't fall off uncertainly, but how subatomic particles and mass and gravity etc etc etc keep them nose and balls attached to their body?

And then, what else?

Hey, what about the total complete entire whole full picture of reality?

And they plan to get to their theory of everything, but I challenge them, what is their definition of everything?

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

“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” in English is about so: “the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city (Mr. Zhong) as well as the guy who surnames Cai in the Class 914 of the No. 1 Middle School of Xinhui long live. In this era, seldom people worldwide deserve such an honor. Haha”. That means piggy has to bow to the First Order and hope they would not terminate me. But piggy doubts whether surrender useful? Or die in another way?
………………………………………………
Once upon time, piggy heard a fun about collider: some scientists wanted to split the proton with large collider. But what they got is counter effect. More complicated result and larger particle appeared.

1 Reply

@htam9876,

Dear htam9876:

Are you in mainland China, and a Christian, and also a Catholic of the what? Patriotic Catholic Church of China(?).

I read about China today as the country with the most number of atheists in the world, and I find that to be surprising - because I seem to take it for granted that the Chinese nation has plenty of deities, but I guess that is true of Chinese in Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia...

So, the Chinese communist regime has succeeded to turn Chinese of mainland China into atheists.

Are you an atheist now, and what brand of atheists, militant brand like what they call themselves the New Atheists of Dawkins' discipleship?

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Dear G*:
Yes, of course, thanks to the “mercy” of the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city, piggy nowadays still exist in mainland China…Xinhui Guangdong.
I don’t think I know what’s the Chinese communist regime. And I don’t think the Chinese communist regime know what I am.
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

1 Reply

@htam9876,

What a joy to notice that what I seem to assume that you write English like a native user of English, I guess you know what I mean.

I am not a native user of English, it is my second language, and I use it at home to talk with my fellow populace who also use English as a second language.

You have not answered my question to you, Are you an atheist?

For I thrill to exchange thoughts with an atheist like you, to all appearances you are not the kind of atheists that are afflicted with taboo and phobia to engage with me, on what they at all know about their being in existence and how they get to know that they exist.

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Thank you for your praise. Actually it’s not easy for me to read and write English. Now and then I have to consult the dictionary. Sometimes piggy even has to go to the “Foreign language bar of cosmos” to ask for help.
Piggy has a thread “American Chinese” in the North America forum. Actually some of my old ancestors worked and lived almost all their lives abroad, such as USA, Canada and Australia.
……………………………………
Piggy not yet joins any religion.
I don’t think religion absolutely conflicts science. They can imagine one rabbit in two holes (I am used to joke the double slits experiment for electron this way), why you can’t imagine a G*?
The local dark lords of the Jiangmen city (the First Order) nailed an iron coffin for piggy long ago. Piggy really doesn’t know what’s useful to believe in.
“给他江门地方黑恶势力钟永康集团及新会一中九一四班谁谁一个超文革赛阎王光荣称号快快全世界全宇宙打靶啦。当今时代，全世界没有什么人能够值得如此殊荣。呵呵” Perhaps useless.
“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” Perhaps useless either.
What piggy believes in only can be “die hard”: cosmos has an end.

Nonetheless, we can present here and chat, we still exist. Thanks G*. haha

1 Reply

@htam9876,

Dear htam9876:

If I may inquire, have you aspired to be say like one Richard Dawkins, who is some kind of atheist celebrity with his fellow atheists?

He has this idea which or by which he thinks that he knows science and is scientific in his way of thinking and writing.

What idea?

This one, and tell me if I get him correctly:

1. The universe is terribly complex, so that God if he exists should be even more complex.

2. The more complex a thing is, the more improbable it gets that it be existing.

3. As God is taken to be the creator of the universe, and since the universe is terribly complex, God must be even more complex.

4. Wherefore, from No. 2, it is most improbable that God exists.

Have I gotten the idea of Dawkins correctly, that is how he in a way proves that God is most improbably to exist.

What do I say about him?

Here, this guy is into semantic trickery, otherswise he is totally un-aquainted with the existence of his nose.

For from his focus on complexity and improbability, I can imagine that he can come to the conclusion that it is most improbable that his nose exists.

How?

This way:

1. The amoeba is terribly complex, so Dawkins' nose is even more complex.

2. The more complex a thing is, the more improbable it gets that it be existing.

3. So it follows from No. 2, that Dawkins' nose is improbable to be existing.

That is an ad hominem on Dawkins, I mean I am also addressing this post to him, he as a human in possession of an intelligent mind, by which he can do honest intelligent productive thinking.

2 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Dear G*:
Piggy encountered a guy whose name is Asexperi in another site. That guy’s opinion about religion, science and philosophy is very fun. Piggy moves it here for reference:
“Among the ways of interpreting the world,
- Religion has 80% of subjectivity and 20% of objectivity.
- Philosophy has 60% of subjectivity and 40% of objectivity.
- Science has 40% of subjectivity and 60% of objectivity”
………………………………………..
Piggy’s comment is as below:
Asexperi deserves a permanent “Oscar” award.
According to Asexperi’s idea, that means “if science can exist, G* can exist”. Haha
Actually no one dares to declare to cosmos that he has understood everything thoroughly in this cosmos. And so the term “standard model” appeared in science is fun.
If you explore nature in another alternative angle, you will be teased, ostracised and even punished by the “authetics”. That gives me a feel of “the
Church ” vs “the pagan”.
.........................................
The most complicated thing in this cosmos is the game of the First Order which does exist. You can see it in PHF.
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

Dear everyone and htam9876:

I am going to reproduce the OP, see below.

Quote:

Post: # 7,050,310 Susmariosep Fri 21 Aug, 2020 03:11 pm
- - - - - - - - - - -

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?

I love to invite fans of Richard Dawkins to exchange thoughts with me, on Dawkins’ fascination with complexity and improbability, I hope to learn from you, dear fans of Dawkins.

There’s a lot for Dawkins to catch up with, namely, virtual particles that flit in and out of existence.

Let him apply his expertise on complexity and improbability to draw the conclusion:

1. That it is improbable that owing to the complexity of virtual particles,
2. It is improbable that new species cannot come about
3. From random mutation and natural selection.

0 Replies

I seem to have read that the popularity rating of Richard Dawkins has dropped down tremendously, even among atheists - for all his being their idol of atheistic ideology.

You know, I am still doing research on the man, and I learned that his writing about everything like how new species come about, yes, how else, than by his peculiar interpretation of the concepts in re complexity and improbability.

He has attained a most comfortable living and fame and influence with atheists to boot, parlaying his advocacy of explaining everything to exist or to not exist - with complexity and improbability.

It is some kind of a one size fits all controversial issues, namely, issues like again how new species come about and how God cannot be in existence.

But when I examine how he works as to convince mankind, one most dominant strategy is the employment of language ambiguity.

Google, dawkins and language ambiguity.

0 Replies

@Susmariosep,

Dear G*:
I am sorry that I have no enough energy and time to research with you.
Piggy is in bad health and very bad mental situation due to suffering cruel and all –around suppression by the local dark lords of the Jianmen city for so many years. Most of my time is spent on worrying the safety and perspective of my family members. In the local place, I am sure that only unfavorable factors are permitted by the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city to go into my life. Actually I am an alive dead man in the local place of Xinhui Jiangmen.
Because of the terrible behavior of the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city, piggy has entirely lost confidence to China. What a sadness it is. Recently, piggy dreams how to become invisible and sneak onto a flight and flee to America. haha
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

Dear readers and fellow posters here, allow me to add more of my findings on Richard Dawkins, who is the most famous atheist today.

Addendum (from my post in another forum)

Quote:

I am now into researching on Dawkins, and he is certainly another instance of my very serious suspicion that militant atheists used to be religiously Christians, but perhaps they then got what, tired?

Anyway, they chose to leave their Christian lifestyle, feeling that they had invested time and effort to be devout Christians, while others have left and now enjoy a lot of liberties - they got embittered and now adopt militant atheism.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Richard Dawkins interviewed by British Broadcasting Company, April 2004
www.bbc.co.uk...

(BBC) And there wasn't a sense of loss here? I mean you obviously hadn't had a personal relationship with God, to whom you spoke in your prayers, because to lose that would've been considerable.

(Dawkins) Well that's probably right. At the age of about 13 when I was being confirmed, I did have a fairly active fantasy life about a relationship with God, and I used to pray and I used to have fantasies about creeping down to the chapel in the middle of the night, and having a sort of blinding vision and things. I don't know really how seriously I took that.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread1267124/pg145#pid25493982

Previous yesterday my post on Richard Dawkins

Quote:

I seem to have read that the popularity rating of Richard Dawkins has dropped down tremendously, even among atheists - for all his being their idol of atheistic ideology.

You know, I am still doing research on the man, and I learned that his writing about everything like how new species come about, yes, how else, than by his peculiar interpretation of the concepts in re complexity and improbability.

He has attained a most comfortable living and fame and influence with atheists to boot, parlaying his advocacy of explaining everything to exist or to not exist - with complexity and improbability.

It is some kind of a one size fits all controversial issues, namely, issues like again how new species come about and how God cannot be in existence.

But when I examine how he works as to convince mankind, one most dominant strategy is the employment of language ambiguity.

Google, dawkins and language ambiguity.

https://able2know.org/topic/551292-6#post-7071130

0 Replies

Well, I am through with Dawkins.

I will now return to my OP:
God's existence and existence of virtual particles.

You see, dear readers and my fellow posters here in A2K and atheists, I read everything that scientists write about, for example, virtual particles that flit in and out of existence, and from my idea of the whole big entire full complete all total picture of reality, they are all compatible with my concept of God, namely, God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Tell me, dear readers and fellow posters here and atheists, what is your whole big entire full complete all total picture of reality?

0 Replies

It is now de rigueur that scientists should abstain totally from factoring in God in their writings on the origin of this or that thing in the world.

But just the same they use the word nature, so that nature is defined like exactly how I define God, namely, God in concept is the creator cause of man and the universe and everything with a beginning.

Then they also get even more imaginative, they use the word, randomness, and when you take careful notice, for them randomness is no different from my concept of God, because randomness creates everything, like new species of life and even the whole universe.

What do you guys say about that?

0 Replies

@bobsal u1553115,

Dear bobsal u1553115:

You ask:
(a) "Why can't there be virtual particles, they seem to 'exist' on the quantum level."
(b) "At the extreme they could exist totally independent of each other."

I am not challenging (a), that is why I submit God and virtual particles are compatible, because 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.
See, OP - https://able2know.org/topic/551292-1#post-7050310.

On (b), ask physical cosmologists about that; for myself, my contention is validated, namely, I make my point that virtual particles are also created by God, as also God creates the physical cosmologists who in a way discover them.

Quote:

From bobsal u1553115 Sun 23 Aug, 2020 07:47 pm @Susmariosep
- - - - -- - - - - - -

Why can't there be virtual particles, they seem to "exist" on the quantum level.

At the extreme they could exist totally independent of each other.

0 Replies

Math vs physics:
Nowadays, if a guy just drunk on playing math games, he will feel that he understands QM very well. But if he tries to find out the physical meaning, it destined to be a tough struggle…
………………………………..
Virtual vs substantial:

If piggy says “the First Order”, it sounds something “virtual”;
If piggy says “the local dark lords of the Jiangmen city”, it sounds something “substantial”.
Piggy is considering a kind of informal particles, the “TMP (temporary medium particle)”. Although they are temporary, they are something substantial. We had some primary discussions in this respect in PHF about two months ago.
https://physicshelpforum.com/threads/matter-vs-anti-matter-vs-dark-matter.15951/post-48781
The “standardization” of research method / angle has significantly held back the development of modern physics.
………………………………..
The purpose of the behavior of the First Order in PHF was obvious to crack down piggy’s confidence and disturb piggy’s effort. (No normal Chinese would do that, I think) “The enemy is cruel and stupid”. Their presence in PHF just demonstrated their existence to the outside world. haha
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

1 Reply

@htam9876,

Dear htam9876:

I must admit with sincere humility and embarrassment that your latest message is really out of my depth.

Suppose I ask you to just choose the most important thought you have in it, and draft it for me in the most simple words, that you believe a lay man in physics and in math can understand, and most important, will feel having profited in knowledge with reading it?

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Dear G*:
We need a PHF to make the First Order appear;
We need a Coulomb field to make the TMP (or in other argument as “virtual particle”) appear;
We need a Church to make the G* appear.
All are existence. Bounce…
Layman is not always a bad thing, at least he not yet became too stubborn.
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

1 Reply

@htam9876,

Dear htam9876, thanks for your information, though as before I beg your indulgence, I am really out of my depth, however, I do understand this line from you, namely:

"Layman is not always a bad thing, at least he not yet became too stubborn."

Here is another line from you that owing to its mention of virtual particle, I feel myself to be in some familiar territory, though not the mathematics involved in virtual particle.

In this connection, I have the following inquiry about whether the physicists/mathematicians who used mathematics to come to the idea of virtual particles flitting in and out of existence, do they have a text they wrote down with mathematical notations and symbols and etc., by which fellow mathematicians who are say expert examiners can pore over it most carefully, and pronounce that the authors of that virtual particles text have not committed any errors at all, or they the experts detect and point out the errors committed by the authors of the text on virtual particles flitting in and out of existence.

What about the use of fudge factors?

Shouldn't fudge factors be detected and called out?

1 Reply

@Susmariosep,

Dear G*:
Actually piggy doesn’t know exactly what’s the origin of the conception of “virtual particle”. Piggy heard some authentic guys said that “gravity is exchange of graviton”, “electromagnetic force is exchange of photon”, “strong nuclear force is exchange of gluon”, etc. What they are talking should be “virtual particle”. But I don’t feel they are much meaningful in physics, just alike “fudge”. I even heard one guy said that “virtual particle is defined as particle which can not be detected”. That made me feel that the conception of “virtual particle” is just something caters to some kind of complicated theory…

“In this connection, I have the following inquiry about whether the physicists/mathematicians who used mathematics to come to the idea of virtual particles flitting in and out of existence, do they have a text they wrote down with mathematical notations and symbols and etc.,”
Piggy did encounter such thing in PHF. Take a look at the link below.
https://physicshelpforum.com/threads/compton-effect.16067/post-49546
And some other posts in that thread of mine, such as:
https://physicshelpforum.com/threads/compton-effect.16067/post-49472
And the post of gatheringknowledge “a collision of light” in Dandan’s thread of Special Relativity 1:
https://physicshelpforum.com/threads/special-relativity-i.15635/post-46600

As I said in that thread of mine, I am not so interested in such a “virtual” mechanism. My conception of TMP is somewhat different from them.
Piggy feels modern physics now is misty. That’s why I decided to explore nature in my own alternative way.
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

1 Reply

God's existence and existence of virtual particles

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know