Re: About God

On Mar 9, 8:31 am, Peter <Poakfi...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Some physicists have difficulty conceiving the existence of God: an
infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end.
They find this hard to believe, but we have three examples of things
that appear to have exactly the same characteristics, and that we
usually have no problem accepting: Space, time, and energy: Space and
time, we realize, could not have had a beginning, and cannot have an
end: they are necessarily infinite, and, evidently, they are not
material. And physics teaches us that energy is conserved: it cannot
be created, and cannot be destroyed. Whatever amount of energy exists
now in the universe, must have always existed, and will continue to
exist forever: it is infinite. And energy in its radiant form
(photons) is not material, it has no mass, weight, or volume. Although
we cannot see it (we can only feel its effects), it affects powerfully
everything it touches. In other words, it has characteristics similar
to those of God.

The above arguments will probably not be accepted by some people who
have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism,
which is silly. It is easy to dismiss the existence of God, but doing
so, we are left with the difficult problem of explaining our own
sometime painful existence.

"A Brief Dialog on God," by Thaddeus Stout (1969)

Q: "Does God exist?"
A: "If you think so."

I will take the liberty here of expanding on Stout's observation:

Q: "What do you mean by that?"
A: "I mean that it depends on what YOU personally mean by the word
'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive
of something that exists."
Q: "Are you being evasive?"
A: "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, perhaps the
most idiosyncratic term in all human language. No two people agree
completely on its meaning. Therefore any detailed analysis of that
meaning is itself meaningful only to one person."
Q: "Then are you trying to be scientific about God?"
A: "Not at all. Science requires replicability and independence from
the observer. I am asserting that neither can be achieved in any
discussion of 'God'. One simply cannot be scientific about 'God' in
the absence of the logical requirements of science."

Tom Davidson
Richmond, VA
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: About God
    ... infinite, immaterial being, who had no beginning and will have no end. ... have made a religion of not believing in anything, except atheism, ... 'God,' and whether you personally accept that meaning as descriptive ... "I am saying that 'God' is a highly idiosyncratic term, ...
    (sci.physics)