RE: Does a God exist?
July 7, 2016 at 4:28 am
(This post was last modified: July 7, 2016 at 4:28 am by pocaracas.)
(July 6, 2016 at 10:52 pm)Ignorant Wrote:: sigh :pocaracas Wrote: 'existing' itself is not a thing. It is a property of a thing.
Property? Not really. Existing is an action of a thing. You might say it is the 'primary' or most fundamental action of a thing. If it isn't being (i.e. if it isn't existing) in the first place, then it isn't being any 'thing' at all.
An "action" of a thing is not a thing, then.... it is... wait for it... a PROPERTY.
Harry Potter has the property of existing, within a very limited realm - the realm of fiction.... a particular realm of fiction, the world invented by J.K. Rowling.
An electron has the property of existing in the real world. It has many other properties, too.... charge, mass, velocity, energy. All those properties, taken together, let us make the identification of "electron".
A conceptual electron, one used by physicists when doing calculations, has no property of existing in the real world.
(July 6, 2016 at 10:52 pm)Ignorant Wrote:pocaracas Wrote: As far as we know, nowadays, at the base of it all is Quarks. Here, education free of charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark
If quarks are at the base of it all in the sense that quarks just 'are' without condition, then the demonstration is proven true, and what we have been calling god all of this time is really quarks. The 'search' for a fundamental particle is based upon the conclusion of this demonstration within the context of a universe in which only a material existence is possible.
However, since there are different sorts of quarks, that indicates that conditions exist according to which the different sorts of quarks are differentiated (called flavors). I am happy to be educated about whether or not these are actually different particles or merely different relative to a particular perspectives. But if an 'up' quark exists on the condition that a particular configuration of matter simultaneously exists, while 'down' quarks exist on the condition that a different configuration of matter (and 'more' of it) exists, then it begs the question: "What is the condition that the "up" 'configuration of matter' exists?"
Eventually, you will arrive at the question: "What is the condition that "exists" exists?" There is none... it just is. If nothing else existed, it would still be. If nothing else existed, it would still be existing.
Ah.... I think I see where you are...
"Why is there something, rather than nothing?"
The theists' POV of science is that, before the big-bang, there was nothing and somehow that nothing turned into the everything in our universe.... there's no mechanism to account for such a thing, therefore God made it so. Am I right?
1) If the big-bang brought forth space-time itself, then "before the big bang" is non-sense, as that expression would represent a timeless state. There's no "before" is there's no time. We humans have a damned hard time wrapping our heads around this type of concept, so it's ok if you too have a difficulty there.
No space and no time... what does that mean?! What does "exist" mean in such a state?
2) If the big-bang didn't bring forth space-time itself, then space-time pre-exists the known Universe. Space-time has been shown to have some remarkable properties... and one of them is the so-called quantum foam... that " is theorized to be created by virtual particles of very high energy. Virtual particles appear in quantum field theory, arising briefly and then annihilating during particle interactions in such a way that they affect the measured outputs of the interaction, even though the virtual particles are themselves space. These "vacuum fluctuations" affect the properties of the vacuum, giving it a nonzero energy known as vacuum energy, itself a type of zero-point energy. However, physicists are uncertain about the magnitude of this form of energy."
If (2) is correct, I see no difficulty in assuming that space-time has always existed (temporally infinite) and is, maybe, spatially infinite. We have no way of testing this without reaching beyond our Universe, so I don't expect this matter to be resolved anytime soon.
But do note how everything can come from simple building blocks, unlike the theist proposition that everything comes from the most complex imaginable building block that lays out the plan for simple blocks to become complex... and, eventually, culminating in an entity of similar highest possible complexity? Almost like if this Universe was a womb for generating the next generation of the divine! Now there's a neat proposition for a movie or book!
Also, picking up on your last sentence there... if nothing exists, the property of "existing" is also absent. Absent from where I wonder....?
Again, if there's no space-time, what does it mean "to exist"?
Does space-time exist as a thing? or is it merely a substrate where everything else exists?
I honestly have no answer for these questions... Let someone wiser than me answer them satisfactorily.