How do you answer this question?

  • Thread starter Thread starter johnnyt3000
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
When speaking of energy, scientists see it as E=mc2, mass in measurement of motion. We know what mass is, a quantity of material, but do we know what motion is? Some do, but apparently scientists, at least empirical scientists don’t, What is the nature of motion, and Scholastic Metaphysicians know that God is the source of motion. In a real sense God is pure energy (pure act), In this sense I can say the formula for energy is wrong, it doesn’t explain energy because mass in a certain rate of motion is not God
 
Tomdstone said:
How do you explain virtual particles which pop into and out of existence? Most people who have studied QED don’t think that quantum field theory is logically ridiculous. Tests of QED have been performed to obtain the value of α is obtained by comparing an experimental measurement to a theoretical expression. The agreement found this way is to within ten parts in a billion (10−8). So to say that quantum field theory is logically ridiculous is untenable. Others claim is that some energy was always there. What law or rule of logic is contradicted by the cyclical theory of the universe? AFAIK, the theory of fullness of act is not a law of logic.
You can call the following paper logically ridiculous, but anyone can call any argument ridiculous. Tell us, what rule of logic is violated by the following paper from Princeton university:
physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/vaasrev.pdf
Click to expand...
Aren’t virtual particles popping in and out of existence mathmatically based on the interaction of two preexisting objects or forces?

(Let alone only mathematical and not proven to exist?)
 
johnnyt3000 said:
One of the arguments for the existence of God is that He is the first mover. This argument works if one assumes that there has not been an infinite amount of movement in the universe. Here is the question:

Is it possible that the universe has been in motion for eternity/infinity and that we just don’t know it’s origin or may not be able to?

also…

How does one come to the conclusion that the first mover is God?
Click to expand...
If all material existed for all infinity back in time, it would still not be a material universe unless there was or is a subjective consciousness to know it exists.
Wherever that consciousness is developed enough to know the universe exists, there is the universe, right there.
Consequences result:
  1. Just as a child is mistaken about many things, so we children of God don’t know if the universe really exists until we get closer to the highest consciousness there is, God.
  2. Consciousness is the basis of the universe, and God is the Conscious creator because without him in us we do not exist, properly speaking.
  3. Because we slip like those uncertain particles in and out of consciousness, not only in sleep but in levels of awareness, it follows that the universe is constantly being created viz a viz our awareness of it.
  4. Consciousness needs no basis but it is still the prime mover because it is intelligent enough to know from the experience of its highest being, man, that if it didn’t exist, then neither would the material. No material, no movement of material. The ball that doesn’t exist can’t be hit over the homerun fence.
 
Michael19682 said:
If all material existed for all infinity back in time, it would still not be a material universe unless there was or is a subjective consciousness to know it exists.
Click to expand...
You may not know that lake Chukchagirskoye exists, but it is still there.
 
Tomdstone said:
You may not know that lake Chukchagirskoye exists, but it is still there.
Click to expand...
No. This is not if a tree fell in the forest with no one to hear it etc.
If the lake is the universe, at least some conscious awareness of it must exist, or it isn’t there.
 
johnnyt3000 said:
One of the arguments for the existence of God is that He is the first mover. This argument works if one assumes that there has not been an infinite amount of movement in the universe. Here is the question:

Is it possible that the universe has been in motion for eternity/infinity and that we just don’t know it’s origin or may not be able to?

also…

How does one come to the conclusion that the first mover is God?
Click to expand...
You cannot have a universe with infinite extension in the past since it take infinite to reach from infinite past to now.
 
This statement almost slipped under the radar way back in post #2:
40.png
LethalMouse:
I understand how God always existed but not space/time
Click to expand...
Really? Would you mind explaining how God always existed? Also, if you believe that God exists in a timeless state, would you mind explaining what you mean by ‘always’?
 
Tomdstone said:
I don’t see how you can say that since God came down from heaven and became man.
Click to expand...
In God we have our being, where is He going to move to, He encompasses all that exists, and there is no outside of God. He entered time through human nature that He created, as a human, and He lifted humanity to the divine level, He now is at once human and always Divine,
 
johnnyt3000 said:
…Is it possible that the universe has been in motion for eternity/infinity
Click to expand...
Yes - it’s metaphysically possible.

But the logical implications that would follow from same are impossible to grasp.

Here’s a few examples;

How long does the past-eternal universe have to exist before we eventually/inevitibly evolve into higher and higher and higher beings until we ultimately become ALL knowing? (God-like)

Why haven’t we invented time machines yet? We’ve had an infinite past to design one.

If we know the universe is a perpetual motion machine that never ends - and has always existed - there seems no reason to care much about species becoming extinct, or the origin of life or whether one person’s idea of morality matters more than another’s.
 
Tomdstone said:
Virtual particles or vacuum fluctuations are a manifestation of the time-energy uncertainty principle in a vacuum.
kestrel.nmt.edu/~raymond/books/radphys/book2/book2.html#x1-2100014.7
Click to expand...
Vaccum is a thing
Time-energy a thing

Per the citation there is theory they move beyond the speed of light.

If we take into account the theory that time is different around the speed of light then such things beyond that speed would be near imperceptible to us in their true manner. Like a scifi movie when someone moves so fast everyone else is “stuck” therefore everything they do happens simultaneously to the others.
 
Nixbits said:
This statement almost slipped under the radar way back in post #2:

Really? Would you mind explaining how God always existed? Also, if you believe that God exists in a timeless state, would you mind explaining what you mean by ‘always’?
Click to expand...
The sciences discussed here are theory. As would be such a discussion of God. Sometimes we may not have the best ways to articulate such things as long before someone mastered the math of virtual particles there were some who supposed they existed etc…

I can’t in fairness quite articulate how I see God as always being. It is an epic effort though possible to picture true nothing with an existing God… it took a long time to be able to percieve such without picturing nothing as empty space since space itself is a thing.

Honestly the fact that we as humans have often percieved an event of the supernatural yeilds partial though not scientifically concludable evidence.

There are many theists and atheists and agnostics alike who can not quite picture or grasp the big bang etc… so we are all able to philosphize a bit differently on the topics. I see a very scientific universe built by the will of God, a God who existed in the forn of only pure will prior to creation. So not even a percievable energy.

Essentially just as virtual particles are technically unproven theory so is mine. However I do not deny the virtual particles, they make much sense to me. I have personally once encountered a supernatural event with the witness of another human… while this is unprovable and could perhaps be argued as a form of “mass hysteria” in us sharing the same “delusion” I am otherwise deemed a sane and functioning human with jobs etc… that would require such. So it does allow a personal glimpse into something rarely percieved by the majority of humans.
 
I called no quantum theory of any kind ridiculous.

A vacuum tube, and the vacuum force itself, is still something, that itself came to be from preexisting materials.

Even if you define the vacuum as absolute nothing (which I do not), these particles (as I understand it) are not subject to space and time as we experience it.

Noting the existence of the particles while inside the tube, does not mean they came into EXISTENCE within the tube, only that they came into your PERCEPTION within the tube.

Even if you could prove that they came into existence FROM the vacuum, and not merely within it -

You still can’t prove they came to be from an absence, as opposed to coming from some (preexisting) substance (or energy) within or without the tube.

Because of the fact that the universe now exists, there is no longer any such thing as absolute nothing. Therefore, we cannot observe any something coming forth from this absence that no longer exists.
 
Tomdstone said:
You are assuming that the universe as a whole had a first cause.
Click to expand...
Do you think the universe has an eternal past? The second law of thermodynamics would refute this because it states that the universe is slowly running out of usable energy. If the universe had an eternal past then the universe would have already ran out of usable energy. Another point would be that if the universe is running out of usable energy, then it would make sense if there was a point when the universe began to exist and started using usable energy.
 
LethalMouse said:
The sciences discussed here are theory. As would be such a discussion of God.
Click to expand...
God is not a topic of natural science. The discussion of God’s existence has to do with metaphysics/epistemology, which fall under the category of philosophy. God does not need to be put under a microscope in order to give proof for His existence. Just as there are logical fallacies that are falsified without appealing to science, likewise there are arguments for the existence of God that can be proofs for His existence without using empirical data. Not all claims need to be proven empirically by natural science in order to be true.
 
ynotzap said:
In God we have our being, where is He going to move to, He encompasses all that exists, and there is no outside of God. He entered time through human nature that He created, as a human, and He lifted humanity to the divine level, He now is at once human and always Divine,
Click to expand...
God came down from heaven, and then He became man. So God does move.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top