What is God?

[yppop]

Ignatius;6691419:

Moonstruck888;6689291:

Incidentally, it was Angular Momentum, dismissed by that arrogant prig yppop as irrelevant, that first put us on the path to realizing the baryons had constituents.

Captain Moonbeam
I know you added that little “prig” comment to annoy me. It didn’t.
However, misinterpreting my statements does annoy me; I never dismissed angular momentun as irrelevant; I do have two degrees in physics and am familiar with the relationship of angular momentum of quarks, both that associated with spin and that associated with the orbital motion of quarks relative to one another. What I question you about is your contention “How does angular momentum lead to the creation of matter”?
You couldn’t answer your own contention and when I alluded to you as a “mere technician” in reponse to your rather arrogant off-handed dismissal as physicists of the men and woman that worked on string theory you went virulent with your name calling. I guess if you can’t respond to a challenge, the easy out is to call the challenger names.

I would still like to know how angular momentum was involved in the creation of matter as you contend. If you know something that legimate physicists don’t then why don’t you explain it, you might win a Nobel Prize…

By the way do you know that one of the definitions for “prig” is: a person who affects great preciseness in matters of learning or morals to the annoyance of others. I guess my preciseness in holding you to your own proclamations is annoying, especially since you can’t give precise answers,
Yppop

 

[Moonstruck888]

Moonstruck888;6691871:

Ignatius;6691419:

Captain Moonbeam
I know you added that little “prig” comment to annoy me. It didn’t.
However, misinterpreting my statements does annoy me; I never dismissed angular momentun as irrelevant; I do have two degrees in physics and am familiar with the relationship of angular momentum of quarks, both that associated with spin and that associated with the orbital motion of quarks relative to one another. What I question you about is your contention “How does angular momentum lead to the creation of matter”?
You couldn’t answer your own contention and when I alluded to you as a “mere technician” in reponse to your rather arrogant off-handed dismissal as physicists of the men and woman that worked on string theory you went virulent with your name calling. I guess if you can’t respond to a challenge, the easy out is to call the challenger names.

I would still like to know how angular momentum was involved in the creation of matter as you contend. If you know something that legimate physicists don’t then why don’t you explain it, you might win a Nobel Prize…

By the way do you know that one of the definitions for “prig” is: a person who affects great preciseness in matters of learning or morals to the annoyance of others. I guess my preciseness in holding you to your own proclamations is annoying, especially since you can’t give precise answers,
Yppop

I don’t like you. I don’t like your bombastic tone, I don’t like your snide remarks about my personal life. Do you want me to pretend I like you? I’m sorry, that’s just not how I feel.

I think you’re a sad little man who seems far more interested in proving you have a loftier career than I do than proving any specific points.

As far as not giving precise answers goes, you could try just asking me a precise question? If you have the knowledge of physics that you claim, you must realise that posting an in depth thesis on the standard model of particle physics on an internet forum along with commentary on it’s implications would be a task that would take a clever man several months.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Can science tell us if time exists or if it is just part of a mental framework for structuring the universe? And can it provide evidence?

We know that events occur as a function of time. I’m not entirely sure if that’s what you mean. The question seems a bit vague and meaningless.

 

[JohnDamian]

We know that events occur as a function of time. I’m not entirely sure if that’s what you mean. The question seems a bit vague and meaningless.

The question was pretty clear… Do you have believe time exists, and if so - do you have evidence?

 

[Moonstruck888]

The question was pretty clear… Do you have believe time exists, and if so - do you have evidence?

The question is not clear at all. Does time exist? What?

Define “exist” for me please, because it seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

 

[JohnDamian]

The question is not clear at all. Does time exist? What?

Define “exist” for me please, because it seems to mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people.

Is there any evidence for times existence? Any repeatable experiements?

If it’s existence cannot be verified by scientific method, by default you would accept time as not real? Is this correct?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Is there any evidence for times existence? Any repeatable experiements?

If it’s existence cannot be verified by scientific method, by default you would accept time as not real? Is this correct?

Define existence and I’ll try to answer your question. At the moment it sounds unpleasantly like some silly semantic trap.

 

[JohnDamian]

Define existence and I’ll try to answer your question. At the moment it sounds unpleasantly like some silly semantic trap.

But I thought science had the answers?

You are asking for a metaphysical explanation of what existence is?

I thought you didn’t do metaphysics…

Now I’m just plain confused, first you do not accept metaphysical proof for God, now you ask for metaphysical definitions of existence?.. Unless you are able to offer a non-metaphysical definition of existence and time I feel you may have demonstrated for me that all this empiricism nonsense was just your idea of a joke - and you really believe in metaphysics?

 

[Moonstruck888]

But I thought science had the answers?

You are asking for a metaphysical explanation of what existence is?

I thought you didn’t do metaphysics…

Now I’m just plain confused, first you do not accept metaphysical proof for God, now you ask for metaphysical definitions of existence?.. Unless you are able to offer a non-metaphysical definition of existence and time I feel you may have demonstrated for me that all this empiricism nonsense was just your idea of a joke - and you really believe in metaphysics?

No pal, I think this might be your idea of a joke. I’m simply asking you what you mean by existence? Am I to assume you don’t actually mean anything at all, or is it just that you don’t even know what you mean?

 

[JohnDamian]

No pal, I think this might be your idea of a joke. I’m simply asking you what you mean by existence? Am I to assume you don’t actually mean anything at all, or is it just that you don’t even know what you mean?

For me, it is rather simple what existence is; in the distinction of matter it is the order of material quanta hylomorphically distinct in quid, or by its quiddity - or in specific individuation the haecceicly particular thing per se; into forms that are themselves of genus or species in quale substantiale.

You appear to be dodging the point here… The question is not what I, as a Realist think about existence, but what YOU the scientist, with scientific method can determin existence to be.

Fortunately I am not a Kantian or I’d be pulling out the critiques and getting a wee bit technical

 

[Moonstruck888]

For me, it is rather simple what existence is; in the distinction of matter it is the order of material quanta hylomorphically distinct in quid, or by its quiddity - or in specific individuation the haecceicly particular thing per se; into forms that are themselves of genus or species in quale substantiale.

You appear to be dodging the point here… The question is not what I, as a Realist think about existence, but what YOU the scientist, with scientific method can determin existence to be.

Fortunately I am not a Kantian or I’d be pulling out the critiques and getting a wee bit technical

By all means. If I come across any terms I’m familiar with, I have google at my disposal.

There’s nothing you can comprehend that I can’t.

 

[JohnDamian]

By all means. If I come across any terms I’m familiar with, I have google at my disposal.

There’s nothing you can comprehend that I can’t.

Ok, what did I say then?

At least I have the humility not to pretend I can learn doctorate science from Google.

 

[Moonstruck888]

For me, it is rather simple what existence is; in the distinction of matter it is the order of material quanta hylomorphically distinct in quid, or by its quiddity - or in specific individuation the haecceicly particular thing per se; into forms that are themselves of genus or species in quale substantiale.

You appear to be dodging the point here… The question is not what I, as a Realist think about existence, but what YOU the scientist, with scientific method can determin existence to be.

Fortunately I am not a Kantian or I’d be pulling out the critiques and getting a wee bit technical

Surely if you want to talk in hylomorphic terms, that would abrogate the need to materially demonstrate time by experiment and render your question, as I stated, meaningless?

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ok, what did I say then?

At least I have the humility not to pretend I can learn doctorate science from Google.

You paraphrased an argument from Aristotle that matter can exist without being physical. I don’t speak latin, so I would have to translate the latter part of what you said.

 

[Moonstruck888]

Ok, what did I say then?

At least I have the humility not to pretend I can learn doctorate science from Google.

Well, it really doesn’t matter what I say does it? If I state that I’m not interested in learning philosophy, I’m wrong. If I state that I will learn it in response to specific questions from you, I’m wrong.

I don’t think I see you quite the same way you see yourself. I don’t see a confident, strident adult with anything approaching humility, I see a cocky little man with a smart mouth who can’t even answer a straight question nor ask one that isn’t loaded.

And I am still waiting for one of you to list some of the mechanical properties of God.

 

[JohnDamian]

Well, it really doesn’t matter what I say does it? If I state that I’m not interested in learning philosophy, I’m wrong. If I state that I will learn it in response to specific questions from you, I’m wrong.

I don’t think I see you quite the same way you see yourself. I don’t see a confident, strident adult with anything approaching humility, I see a cocky llittle man with a smart mouth who can’t even answer a straight question nor ask one that isn’t loaded.

And I see a man who claims he can build a bridge across the English channel out of toothpicks… Which is identical to someone trying to use science to answer a metaphysical claim.

I am just demonstrating (using time) that your scientific method cannot be universally applied, which is why it is stupid for you to ask me - or anyone else, to give metaphysical explanations in light of your silly little close minded scientific method.

I take it you “think” time exists, yet you cannot prove it. However, you ask us for proof that God exists, when we give you that proof, you say “its not in the form I want it”… Well I’m sorry, Philosophy doesen’t do intellectual happy meals, so science should sit the whole God debate out.

 

[Moonstruck888]

And I see a man who claims he can build a bridge across the English channel out of toothpicks… Which is identical to someone trying to use science to answer a metaphysical claim.

I am just demonstrating (using time) that your scientific method cannot be universally applied, which is why it is stupid for you to ask me - or anyone else, to give metaphysical explanations in light of your silly little close minded scientific method.

I take it you “think” time exists, yet you cannot prove it. However, you ask us for proof that God exists, when we give you that proof, you say “its not in the form I want it”… Well I’m sorry, Philosophy doesen’t do intellectual happy meals, so science should sit the whole God debate out.

I never said science could be Universally applied. I said AGAIN, and for ****'s sake will you listen this time, that I DO NOT PRETEND TO KNOW WHAT UNDERLIES THE UNIVERSE!!!

Did that sink in to your thick little head this time???

YOU DO NOT KNOW EITHER. YOU PRETEND TO KNOW. I DO NOT. I accept that it is unknowable where time and space came from.

All I can tell you on time is that without our conception of time, our view of the Universe does not work. Does that prove that there is such a thing as time? I don’t know.

The basic unit of time, Planck Time is defined in physics as being the interval a light beam takes to cross planck’s length in a vacuum and is equal to:



That’s all I know on the matter.

 

[Moonstruck888]

I take it you “think” time exists, yet you cannot prove it. However, you ask us for proof that God exists, when we give you that proof, you say “its not in the form I want it”…

Then list the properties of God.

If you have empirical proof, let’s have it?

 

[JohnDamian]

Then list the properties of God.

If you have empirical proof, let’s have it?

I do not deal in empirical proof in general. Because it is a low form of proof and posterior to Logic and Good Sense; it is too easy to corrupt.

And the conception of Planck Time per se, does not require time to exist in a sensible or real or qualified or quiddiative fashion - and it can easily exist in an idealistic sense and thus it’s existence is not demonstrated by that equasion.

You seem frustrated about me saying you apply scientific method universally, yet you immediatly ask for scientific (empirical) proof for God’s properties…

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Then list the properties of God.

If you have empirical proof, let’s have it?

Why do we need empirical proof?