Majority Scientists disbelieve GOD

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce
1. I disagree with your and Alexander's definition of of reality. There are immaterial thing in this world that do indeed exist that cannot be measured by a ruler or touched, felt or smelled. As I have said in other posts, I have yet to experience a material, Ie measurerable, touchable, smellable, thought, idea, beauty, love etc.

These are just chemical reactions and e/m pulses between neurons in brain. Easily measurable and controllable by sticking wires and extracting or adding chemicals.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce

Alexander; "Scientists define as "material" ALL that exists.

This means that immaterial things (god, angel, soul, etc) do not exist simply by definition of matter (=anything which exists)."

Once again, a physical scientist has professional knowelge in physical reality but admit they have no professional knowledge in the immaterial.

Once again, matter is BY DEFINITION ALL that exists. That is how definition work - instead of repeat over and over long combination of words (everything that exist) we simply nickname it "matter" - just to shorten a paperwork. And it does not matter that YOU do not agree with this definition. Definitions are not something to argue about. Definitions are simply equations in which right side (=matter) is SAME as left side (=all around us) by definition. Just for convenience of saving time and space. So you can't argue about definitions unless you lack logic.

So there are NO non-material things around. Thus, non-material things do NOT exist. Plain and simple logic.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
So there are NO non-material things around. Thus, non-material things do NOT exist. Plain and simple logic.

Royce put up good point: logic is non-material.
Logic is God of scientists. Impersonal, fair, allpervading, allcreating, allknowing. Om.

 

[Royce]

This pile of hydrocarbons, water and trace inorganic chemicals refuses to believe that the photons being emitted by a crt and being absorbed by chemicals in my retina generating electric pulses that travel to my brain causing more and different chemicals and electric charges do not contain information, possibly even intellegence if not logic even when I'm reading your posts re my posts.
I sir exist even though you refuse to acknowlege it. I am not simply a pile of chemicals. Art and beauty exist even it they are made out of wood cavas and pigment. Music can be beautiful even if it is only mechanical vibration creating pressure differentiations in a gaseous medium. Love is more than hormones. You have grossly overstated your position and are now trapped by your own absurdity.
There is much more to the universe, life and living than just matter and energy. To deny that truth is to deny you own existence which is an absurity. I know you exist just as I know I exist.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Once again, matter is BY DEFINITION ALL that exists. That is how definition work - instead of repeat over and over long combination of words (everything that exist) we simply nickname it "matter" - just to shorten a paperwork. And it does not matter that YOU do not agree with this definition. Definitions are not something to argue about. Definitions are simply equations in which right side (=matter) is SAME as left side (=all around us) by definition. Just for convenience of saving time and space. So you can't argue about definitions unless you lack logic.

So there are NO non-material things around. Thus, non-material things do NOT exist. Plain and simple logic.

Just a little remark.
Do you know the Standard Model?
Standard Model has 19+ unexplained parameters and mass is put in (via Higgs mechanism) "by hand".
They created an extra dimension just to make the theory working. Thus an assumption ...
In your vision ... this is just fantasy ?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by wimms
Royce put up good point: logic is non-material.
Logic is God of scientists. Impersonal, fair, allpervading, allcreating, allknowing. Om.

Logic is material. Logic comes from observation that some quantities in our universe conserve.

 

[wimms]

Originally posted by Alexander
Logic is material. Logic comes from observation that some quantities in our universe conserve.

What we observe is logic of material. Where from comes the logic that causes some quantities conserve definitely doesn't come from our observation.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce
This pile of hydrocarbons, water and trace inorganic chemicals refuses to believe that the photons being emitted by a crt and being absorbed by chemicals in my retina generating electric pulses that travel to my brain causing more and different chemicals and electric charges do not contain information, possibly even intellegence if not logic even when I'm reading your posts re my posts.

Not sure what you want to say here. I know that scientists do not rely on fluctuating (depending on chemical environment left by morning cofee shot or evening LSD shot) amplitude of e/m pulses in our brain (we call those pulses as "senses and emotions" when they (scientists) measure color or brightness of a star or a flower, pitch and duration of bird mating song or water temperature near Waikiki beach. They (scientists) use devices, not fluctuating emotional pulses.

I sir exist even though you refuse to acknowlege it. I am not simply a pile of chemicals.

We all are piles of interacting chemicals. This is experimental fact.

Art and beauty exist even it they are made out of wood cavas and pigment. Music can be beautiful even if it is only mechanical vibration creating pressure differentiations in a gaseous medium.

Beauty is a mathematical symmetry (and there are variety of specific symmetries in math).

Love is more than hormones.

Did I say that love is ONLY hormones? No. Hormones trigger many reactions which in turn trigger trains of certain pusles to various body and brain parts. Body parts then act, and brain parts recall associated memories accordingly. All this together is what we label as "love" or "caring behavior".

You have grossly overstated your position and are now trapped by your own absurdity.
There is much more to the universe, life and living than just matter and energy.

Any fact or observation to substantiate that?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration
Just a little remark.
Do you know the Standard Model?
Standard Model has 19+ unexplained parameters and mass is put in (via Higgs mechanism) "by hand".
They created an extra dimension just to make the theory working. Thus an assumption ...
In your vision ... this is just fantasy ?

What exactly is the question?

 

[Royce]

Alexander,
Logic is pure abstract thought. Math is pure abstract thought. Both have applications in the material, physical world and can be used to model or discribe what we see happening in the material world. But they are pure abstract thought invented, concieved and perfected by the mind of man. They are not of matter or by matter and contain no matter.
It has yet to be proved that thought has anything to do with the chemical/electrial charge happening in the human brain. That is only an assumption on your part. There are simular goings on in the brain of a frog but I don't believe that is has anything to do with logic or math.
According to your statement that only matter exists then thought, logic, math do not exist. Yet you attempt to support your position with the very logic that you proved does not exist.
Obviously that is not logical. Therefore you premise must be incorrect, that matter is all that exists in the universe, no matter= no existence.

 

[Royce]

Alexander, I have just finished rereading this thread. It is possible that I am making a wrong assumption that your statement
"Matter is all that exists" is exclusive as well as inclusive.
You statement that matter is all that exist may not also be saying that matter is ALL that exists. However you have also said that if it is not matter, it doesn't exist. We both keep repeating the same things over and over again. I am beginning to suspect that while we may think that we are talking about the same thing we may not be. My point is that there exist in this universe that which is material --Matter; AND, that which is immaterial -- thought, both subjective and abstract, beauty, love, mind separated in concept at least from the physical brain etc.
Please remember that I am not attacking you, your logic or intellegence only your premise that is materialism in the extreme.
" Matter and only matter exists in the universe. That which is matter does not exist."
I am apparently not making myself clear when I mentioned "proffesional knowlege." I mean that professional knowledge is knowledge they have directly relating to there profession. If a scientist is a physical scientist then his professional knowledge is about the physical sciences. Of course he has knowledge other than about PS but that knowledge is personel knowledge not professional knowlege. I am not a scientist. I am an electronics technician who is now operationg and maintaining a flight simulator. My professional knowledge is about electronics and flight simulators. I have a lot of knowledge about a lot of other subjects as we all do but that is personal knowledge not proffesional. A psychologist has a lot of professional knowledge about personality disorders and mental functions of the brain/mind. One would have to agree that a theologian has a lot of professional knowledge about theology dispite ones beliefs or disbeliefs of theology.

 

[Alexander]

From webster dictionary:
matter: 1. That which makes up the substance of anything.

 

[Royce]

Very good, Alexander. Now look up the meaning of "anything" verus that of "everything."

 

[Alexander]

anything: 1.any thing whatever
2. AT ALL

everything: 1.all that exists.

 

[Royce]

Very good again, Alexander. Now notice that "anything" does not included "everything", but in logical set theory terms, the set of 'Anything' is a subset of the set of 'Everything.' This implies that there are other things in the set 'Everything' that are not included in the set 'Anything.' Thus we have:

Definition 1.: Matter - that which make up the substance of anything.

Definition 2.: Anything -1.any thing whatever
2. AT ALL

Definition 3.:Everything - 1.all that exists.

Theorem 1: Anything is a subset of the universal super set everything.

Postulate 1: The super set anything includes that which is not of the
set anything.

Conclusion: There exist in the superset Everything that which is
not of the set everything; therfore, there exists that
which is not made of matter.

I'm sure that you knew before hand where I was going with all this and I thank you for cooperating with me. The above is a sample of how formal logic is done. Very much like the math homework problems that we all had to do where we show every step and all the proofs required.
I was not being a smarta**. I was just using your position with your implied permission to demonstrate formal logic. It is irrefutable and thus logically proves my point and disproves your point by the very definitions that you supplied. Incidently this is called being hoisted by your own petard. It has happened to me a number of times.
So often in fact that I used to say of myself; "Open mouth. Change feet."
You are of course free to argue any and all points of the above but the only way you can logically dispute it is to say that the definitions that you supplied were not valid. Unfortunately this again invalidates your position.

As always with great respect,

 

[Alexander]

You logically got wrong conclusion simply because you started with INCORRECT assumption (that ANYTHING that exists is not same as EVERYTHING that exists).

Sorry for correction.

 

[Royce]

Reread your own definitions.
Everything is the universal super set of everything that exits.
There can only be one such set. The only other possible set is everything that does not exist, but that would be an empty set and that is not allowed as empty set is mutually exclusive, an oxymoron.
The set Anything does not contain everything. Look at the definitions Anything does not equal everything. The definition contains modifiers, ie "any" thing "AT" ALL. Everying contains no modifiers, every thing that exist. No where will you find anybody to agree with you that the word 'any' and the word 'every' mean the same thing. They are not an identity.
I told you that the only way you could refute the conclusion is to try to change your definitions. I am not going to allow you to do that however in the way that you attemped to as it is meaningless and invalid.

 

[Alexander]

Wrong once again. You fail to realize that "everything" consists of ALL of "anythings" - look up their definitions.

Show me any "anything" which would not be a part of "everything", or "everything" which would NOT cover ALL of "anythings"?

 

[Royce]

Originally posted by Alexander
Wrong once again. You fail to realize that "everything" consists of ALL of "anythings" - look up their definitions.

Show me any "anything" which would not be a part of "everything", or "everything" which would NOT cover ALL of "anythings"?

No, Alexander I am not wrong.
Your fist statement is exactly what Theorem 1. says "The set Anything is a subset of the set Everything, ie Everything wholly contains all of Anythings. This concedes the truth of Theorem 1.
Your second statement is just a rewording of the first and again concedes the validity of the proof. the set Anything is a subset of the set Everything and wholly contained within the set Everything.
Your third statement is the definition of the universal super set Everything. The set Everything contains all things that exits wholly including all possible anythings.

The more you argue the more you support my position and the validity of my proof; and, the deeper the hole that you are digging for yourself. Try a different tack such as trying to find a different definition of matter that supports you position and underminds mine.
Or, heaven forbid, admit that I have proved my point and let's go on from there rather than argue in circles as we have been doing.

 

[Alexander]

Which point did you prove" That matter is NOT everything which exists? You have not proven that yet.

And you can't - simply because this is the DEFINITION of matter - every thing and any thing which exists around us is called matter. There is nothing you can do about definitions unless you want to abandon logic.

 

[pelastration]

Originally posted by Alexander
Which point did you prove" That matter is NOT everything which exists? You have not proven that yet.

And you can't - simply because this is the DEFINITION of matter - every thing and any thing which exists around us is called matter. There is nothing you can do about definitions unless you want to abandon logic.

Do you consider mathematics as matter?

 

[Royce]

Surely Alexander you know that photons and electromagnetic waves exist in this universe. They are not composed of matter and have no mass. This is the last I'm going to respond to on this subject. I am bored with belaboring a minor point with someone who will not or can accept the thoughts or logic of another as having any validity. You mind is made up and refuses to see any other possibility. You have a closed mind. That's a shame. It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by pelastration
Do you consider mathematics as matter?

Is mathematics a "thing" (object)?

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by Royce
Surely Alexander you know that photons and electromagnetic waves exist in this universe. They are not composed of matter and have no mass. This is the last I'm going to respond to on this subject. I am bored with belaboring a minor point with someone who will not or can accept the thoughts or logic of another as having any validity. You mind is made up and refuses to see any other possibility. You have a closed mind. That's a shame. It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye.

Don't you know that photons are MATTER? Being bosons they obey different statistics than fermions (electrons, protons), rather than that have same properties other particles have - they are wavy (as all particles), have spin, momentum, energy. What makes you think that photons are not matter?

By the way, if you place about 3x10³⁵ of green photons in a massless box, the box will acquire mass 1 kg. (Both inertial mass and gravitational mass).

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Don't you know that photons are MATTER? Being bosons they obey different statistics than fermions (electrons, protons), rather than that have same properties other particles have - they are wavy (as all particles), have spin, momentum, energy. What makes you think that photons are not matter?

By the way, if you place about 3x10³⁵ of green photons in a massless box, the box will acquire mass 1 kg. (Both inertial mass and gravitational mass).

First, in all my physics books fields are not considered matter, nor is energy. (Though I'll acknowledge that a field results from material processes, and energy is intimately invovlved in materiality.)

Second, you are the one who asserted that matter is everything; it is not up to us to disprove that, it is up to you to prove it. Can you prove consciousness, for example, is matter?

 

[Alexander]

Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c² kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c² kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Mass?

The 2000 edition of "Modern Physics" states plainly that a field is "immaterial."

And you didn't mention consciousness.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by LogicalAtheist
Alex said: " It is impossible to learn anything or have a meaningful discussion with anyone when your mind is closed to all and any other possibility other than what you KNOW. Goodbye. "

That's exactly why I have him on block.

The reason you have me on "block" and still take potshots is because you are afraid to debate anyone who is going to call you on your arrogance, rudeness and failure to reason properly.

You've already demostrated you don't know much about physics with your comments on QM and GR. Do you think you understand fields? Consciousness? If so, then make your case LA, and stop prancing around saying things are so without feeling the slightest responsiblity to explain why. Or is it you think you are God, and we should all just accept your word?

Again I ask, what sort of science training have you had where you don't have to support your assertions with evidence? Speaking in absolutes as you do is no different than debating someone spouting religious dogma.

 

[LogicalAtheist]

...and I suggest you do the same. It makes this place much more purposefull!

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by Alexander
Update your book. Energy has all attributes of matter (and vice versa): inertia, gravity (in the concrete amount equal to E/c² kilos), momentum, angular momentum, etc. Energy can diffract, interfere and propagate via vacuum - same as matter. There is no any significant difference between them.

Plus, since you appear to be talking about EM, I might point out that light isn't energy, but rather carries energy. You can measure light's energy, for example, by its frequency. As Integral made rigidly clear to me at the last PF, energy has no defining characteristics other than the capacity to do work. So all the traits you assigned to energy above belong to EM, and not to energy (which is immaterial!).

 

[FZ+]

Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.

 

[Les Sleeth]

Originally posted by FZ+
Ok... I think we are being really pedantic here.
I think in most materialists, the idea is that of being focused on what is directly observable, and objectively existent. Ie. as opposed to spiritualism. Dictionary defines material as:

1. Of or having an effect on real or solid matter or substance.

I think if we go to the extent where we say that materialism = standard baryonic matter only, pretty much nobody would actually be a materialist. They won't be spiritualists or idealists either. The philosophical ideal of materialism is quite distinct from the scientific concept of matter as a sub-type of energy.

Pedantic!

I agree with your view of what's material, and actually I think fields and energy are material-related even if they lack mass. But you must admit comrade Alexander starts the pedantic trend with his strict limiting of any discussion of reality to what math or physics can explain.

 

[Alexander]

Originally posted by LW Sleeth
Mass?

Yes, m=E/c² kilos.

And you didn't mention consciousness.

You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K⁺ ions exchange with Na⁺ ions - what is special about this?

 

[Fliption]

Originally posted by Alexander
Yes, m=E/c² kilos.



You mean active state of neurons? Currents propagate back and forth over axons, neurons flip back and forth between lower and upper state, K⁺ ions exchange with Na⁺ ions - what is special about this?

Lol. Is there anything you DON'T know Alexander? Is there anything that you wonder about? Are there any truths left to uncover from your perspective? Or is everything already explained perfectly in your science book? If it is the latter,(and it does seem to be), then we can fire all scientists. We don't need them anymore. They have found all the answers! There's nothing left to do. It's all very simple! Just ask Alexander!

Why, the only thing left to wonder about is why no one else sees how simple it is but Alexander!