(July 21, 2019 at 7:23 am)comet Wrote:

(July 20, 2019 at 12:33 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: Not sure if you're asking me. 
Heat energy is the movement of particles, not the particles themselves. 
So the idea that "everything there is" is quantum particles cannot be true.

They don't know what energy is.  They know how to use the notion but not what it is.  Just Like they don't know what gravity is but can use it.    I I think its better stated thewho is “they” movement of particles is the indication of "heat energy".  Its Like seeing if its windy outside by looking out the window.  The movement isn't the wind. 

Maybe change that to "everything we know is based on quantum particles."?  If space/time itself is quantized then everything being based on quantized is correct.

Who is “they”?    If “they” are theists who mutter doggerels like “god is pure energy”, then you are right.    If “they” are physicists, then their not knowing what energy is would be an extraordinary claim.

Energy would seem to my limited education in basic physics to be a property of particles and fields.   Just as a photon has energy, and can have different energy, and can have its energy changed, so a matter particle can have energy, and can have its energy changed.  This is the explanation for the kinetic energy of particles question.

So universe at quantum level is all fields and particles.   Each field and particle has its properties.  These properties can change from time to time.

So it seems to me that saying the universe must be more than its particles and fieldsbecause some of it must also be properties of its particles would seem somewhat nonsensical in a dualistic way.   It is like saying there must be more to you than the sum total of your matter and how they interact.   There is also your soul.

(July 21, 2019 at 10:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: If “they” are theists who mutter doggerels like “god is pure energy”, then you are right

Are there theists who think God is pure energy, though? Because energy is a natural object. God is supposed to be supernatural, don't cha know?

(July 21, 2019 at 10:07 am)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(July 21, 2019 at 10:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote: If “they” are theists who mutter doggerels like “god is pure energy”, then you are right

Are there theists who think God is pure energy, though? Because energy is a natural object. God is supposed to be supernatural, don't cha know?

There is as many varieties of theists as there are varieties of bullshit that monkey brains whose limited imaginations are mainly shaped by ignorance, neediness and terror, and that  cares far less for truing up with reality than for assuaging neediness and fear, can conceive.

There is a god for every believer, I had one. More wise in hindsight, in agreement with heroic jestures and all that. Turns out, it was like the ideas I try to uphold, but more perfect. In the end it agreed with me, and I am not here to be agreed upon.

Anybody else notice the OP effing off like a scaredy cat? Or are we just too interested in the current shenanigans?

(July 21, 2019 at 4:32 pm)Nomad Wrote: Anybody else notice the OP effing off like a scaredy cat? Or are we just too interested in the current shenanigans?

I think he's scarpered.

(July 21, 2019 at 10:03 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 21, 2019 at 7:23 am)comet Wrote: They don't know what energy is.  They know how to use the notion but not what it is.  Just Like they don't know what gravity is but can use it.    I I think its better stated thewho is “they” movement of particles is the indication of "heat energy".  Its Like seeing if its windy outside by looking out the window.  The movement isn't the wind. 

Maybe change that to "everything we know is based on quantum particles."?  If space/time itself is quantized then everything being based on quantized is correct.

Who is “they”?    If “they” are theists who mutter doggerels like “god is pure energy”, then you are right.    If “they” are physicists, then their not knowing what energy is would be an extraordinary claim.

Energy would seem to my limited education in basic physics to be a property of particles and fields.   Just as a photon has energy, and can have different energy, and can have its energy changed, so a matter particle can have energy, and can have its energy changed.  This is the explanation for the kinetic energy of particles question.

So universe at quantum level is all fields and particles.   Each field and particle has its properties.  These properties can change from time to time.

So it seems to me that saying the universe must be more than its particles and fieldsbecause some of it must also be properties of its particles would seem somewhat nonsensical in a dualistic way.   It is like saying there must be more to you than the sum total of your matter and how they interact.   There is also your soul.

this is ok on the surface.  the fields actually can change from place to place too.  You and I are are the same set of fields.  The exact same set of fields.  Thats pretty cool.  well, if fields theory is right that is.  but it did make cell phones so it can't be too far off. 

physicist do not know what energy is.  just like they do not know what gravity is.  they can work with it (bad pun intended) but they do not know what it is.   Its not an extraordinary claim ... it just is.

(July 21, 2019 at 10:12 am)Anomalocaris Wrote:

(July 21, 2019 at 10:07 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: Are there theists who think God is pure energy, though? Because energy is a natural object. God is supposed to be supernatural, don't cha know?

There is as many varieties of theists as there are varieties of bullshit that monkey brains whose limited imaginations are mainly shaped by ignorance, neediness and terror, and that  cares far less for truing up with reality than for assuaging neediness and fear, can conceive.

But the Hindus were able to figure out the Bermuda Triangle. Can science top that?

(July 13, 2019 at 7:33 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

---

If everything needs a reason to exist, then you are locked into a preceding cause for God to exist (in other words, God was created by something else).  This gets you into an infinite regression of causes, which is a messy business at best, and doesn't help your argument.

Since, by your argument, God can't exist without a prior cause and you reject the possibility of such a cause, then God can't exist.  Since God can't exist and the universe clearly does, then

---

you have managed to neatly disprove the existence of God.

---

Well done!!


Boru

---

Perhaps, he's getting too much credit.
Not everything must have a cause; rather, everything that begins must have a cause. 

Can you give two examples of something that didn’t begin to exist?