Mass and energy are properties of matter or quantization fields. Quantized fields and spin network or string like "structures" would be the ultimate constituents most likely.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheists and Theists: how do you pick and choose what to believe?
- Thread starter 1137
- Start date
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
At least you can understand that.
My forte tends to be in psychology and religious studies.
My hypothesis would mean that the only thing available to creation 'fields', 'networks' and 'structures' from would be forms of mass-energy.
Otherwise there'd have to be something else in the Big Bang, or some addition to our universe after the Big Bang. I'm not aware of any such thing.
There is a nice easy to understand book on this,At least you can understand that.
My forte tends to be in psychology and religious studies.
Reality Is Not What It Seems
Mister Silver
Faith's Nightmare
Thank you for the recommendation.
Things like fields, networks and strings structures are also "stuff" that will have properties like mass and energy. That's the main points. There's stuff, and there's properties of stuff. Mass and energy are properties, and so, ontologically, they need to inhere in "stuff". It's entirety possible that there are certain fundamental properties and others are emergent out of interactions between "stuff" with fundamental properties. Mass-energy may be fundamental properties of fundamental stuff or they may be emergent properties at group level interactions. We shall see.
The above post makes me feel philosophically intelligent.
In my hypothesis, mass-energy is a single thing (the equivalence of its elements being shown as E=mc^2). And is not a property, but, as you neatly put it, is 'stuff'.
My hypothesis is just that, an hypothesis, and if it's wrong then what you say is, broadly, necessarily correct.
Just so.We shall see.
Enjoy!The above post makes me feel philosophically intelligent.
An interesting read as usual, @1137
You lost me a bit when you described picking and choosing what one believes as a "problem." While I'd generally question how much choice there is involved in that process at all, I have a hard time seeing how adapting a framework to work in your specific life and environment is a problem. That sounds like an asset to me. To borrow a page from the biological sciences, plasticity is usually a desirable trait within generalist organisms (which humans are) because it allows for rapid adaption to changing circumstance. An organism that does not adapt... dies. Religions that do not adapt to their bearers also die.
But it seem your larger point here appears to be about inconsistencies in a person's framework or worldview? Also not a particularly uncommon thing, and I'm not sure I would apply the word "problem" there either as such inconsistencies seem unavoidable. You seem to take specific issue with the leveling of criticisms. Perhaps the take home message should be to speak criticisms with caution and reserve, let your own banes be laid bare? It's something I like to keep in mind at any rate.
As for the larger question of how one "decides" (if such decisions are really a thing, which is questionable) what one accepts and what one won't? I think @Willamena was spot on earlier - confirmation bias and wishful thinking. I'd use different words to describe it, but there is elegance in simplicity.
You lost me a bit when you described picking and choosing what one believes as a "problem." While I'd generally question how much choice there is involved in that process at all, I have a hard time seeing how adapting a framework to work in your specific life and environment is a problem. That sounds like an asset to me. To borrow a page from the biological sciences, plasticity is usually a desirable trait within generalist organisms (which humans are) because it allows for rapid adaption to changing circumstance. An organism that does not adapt... dies. Religions that do not adapt to their bearers also die.
But it seem your larger point here appears to be about inconsistencies in a person's framework or worldview? Also not a particularly uncommon thing, and I'm not sure I would apply the word "problem" there either as such inconsistencies seem unavoidable. You seem to take specific issue with the leveling of criticisms. Perhaps the take home message should be to speak criticisms with caution and reserve, let your own banes be laid bare? It's something I like to keep in mind at any rate.
As for the larger question of how one "decides" (if such decisions are really a thing, which is questionable) what one accepts and what one won't? I think @Willamena was spot on earlier - confirmation bias and wishful thinking. I'd use different words to describe it, but there is elegance in simplicity.
Thanks. With my confirmation bias firmly in hand, I'm not satisfied.
Ex hypothesi I think 'matter' is just a form of energy; and while he asserts a difference, he says there's no single definition of 'matter'.
What was in the Big Bang at the Planck time if not mass-energy or something equivalent? He doesn't say.
He says energy is not a thing but a property. That is, he says the things affected by energy are prior in nature, whereas I say energy is prior in nature. Energy is transferred all the time, whether I split an atom or drop a book on my foot or turn on a light or get sunburn or pour hydrochloric acid on a nail, or my fingernail grows longer by a micron. The whole universe is an economy of energy. Entropy results from the remorseless appetite of one form of energy to move from places of higher energy to adjacent places of lower energy till they average out. Something ─ some thing ─ moves between those places, associates itself with what is already there; or simply exists there, like the energy of the vacuum.
However, I appreciate being made to think. And my hypothesis remains an hypothesis, meaning it may be wrong. Thanks.
Last edited:
GoodguyWeirdwas
New Member
This message opens up a big question in my head
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
Not familiar with Smart and Armstrong. There are atheists that believe in ghosts and other things....so it is not necessary to be totally be a materialist to be an atheist. You only have to have a lack of belief in a god.
No, monism is a specific belief that nobody (that I know of) holds anymore.
Indeed.
I disqualified myself as an atheist when I realized I didn't know what a real god ─ a god with objective existence ─ could be, so I didn't know what I didn't believe in.
By contrast, unicorns are reasonably well described, so they give me no problems of that kind.
Last edited:
Kelly of the Phoenix
Well-Known Member
If God tells you to kill someone in one breath and love them in another, how do you avoid picking one or the other?
Exactly. I worship "Truth". Whoever is closest at the time gets the vote.
I do. I consider myself a materialistic theist. I don't see any need to label anything "supernatural". There is only natural.
If you don't accept them, they weren't that plausible, were they?
And Jesus told us to judge a tree by its fruits, OT or NT fruits must therefore be verified as being "nutritious" or else tossed in the trash with the rest of the garbage.
The latter is a science. What is a "life field"?
It is not separate from nature at all. When someone is doing something like that, we call that a mental disorder.
I don't care what you wrote. I want to know what the hell a life field is. Bonus points if you can argue that a weak electrical field (which I surmise is what this actually is) is supernatural.
How can the supernatural be measured with natural assessment tools? We are natural, so there must be some natural mechanism to a "supernatural" thing in order for us to detect it with our natural bodies.
You specifically claimed it and failed to cite actual authors if they were not you.
See "To quote from a writing of mine".
I've talked to Muhammad and Vishnu and the Great Spirit. Do I get a cookie? Wait, I hate cookies. Do I get a potato chip?
I have a BS degree in psychology and most of my books are either science or history or religion.
And I'm an RN, so silly medical things like "life fields" ... I mean, I will take "chi" or whatever because we're actually just really dealing with pain and such which is a nervous system issue, but seriously, "life fields"?
Hi! But don't choose what you answer, because apparently choosing is wrong.
My dear, please take the whole bag!I've talked to Muhammad and Vishnu and the Great Spirit. Do I get a cookie? Wait, I hate cookies. Do I get a potato chip?
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
I see the truth in that....but rather than think of "god" generically, I tend to examine the claims surrounding each god made by the adherents, and then base my decision on their own claims. Yes, it would take a lifetime and more perhaps to examine all the claims about all the versions of the gods presented so far in human history. But I already don't believe in those I don't know about. The examination of an individual version of, say, the Christian god allows me to decide more conclusively on that particular version. One has to keep in mind that absolute certainty is not needed, and indeed not attainable whether one was to believe or not believe.
jonathan180iq
Well-Known Member
If you want to really break it down, none of us actually know anything at all. We're all just guessing at random scenarios and then arguing about them to no end...
So why are we even here?
Last edited:
But if I come across a candidate unicorn, all I need to check is whether it's equine, has an authentic single front-mounted horn, will only deal with virgins, and looks good on a tapestry.
Whereas no such description is available for God. For example, suppose I want to know whether this keyboard I'm typing on is actually God in one of his disguises. If it is, then it must contain some unique element which is God and isn't in your average keyboard. But how to find out? There's no such meaningful information and there's no such test.