• 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!

Is God an energy being ?

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
If all of material existence has no fundamental substance; if all that we see and all that we are, is but waves in space, induced by fluctuations in a quantum field; then we must ask ourselves, what power brought this illusion into being, and by what power do we perceive it? By what miracle are we awake to see and to question this infinitely complex web of related phenomena?

Is all life really, as Shakespeare’s Lear asked, “A tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing”? Or does a great, though perhaps to us unknowable, purpose underly it all?
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No. Nothing is energy, things have energy. Energy is a property of other things, not a thing itself.
I don't think that we know enough about matter and energy and anti matter and....... to know.
We might know enough to do stuff around here, but at the centre of our galaxy (for instance) we haven't got a clue about what goes on inside a super massive black hole like Sagittarius A*.

Having said that I think that everything, force and anything else is a part of 'God'.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I've already established his qualifications in this field, pardon me if I don't accept guesswork to bolster confirmation bias
It's all guesswork, whoever makes any kind of guess or claim. :)

Professor Cox says we don't know, so that's good enough for me. .......... ergo...Beteljuice is made of strawberries! :p
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
It really isn't. Energy isn't stuff, things can't be made of energy. Energy is a property of things, see above: #40.
It is in my garden, or your workshop.....and around here.

But since we haven't got a clue about the physics that produced this one universe, or what happens to matter and energy inside singularities, I want to keep and open mind.

For that reason I think of God as every thing, every force and anything else, all together...the lot, including you and me.

And I don't know how dark matter and antimatter fit in to your equations..... any clues?
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I don't think that we know enough about matter and energy and anti matter and....... to know.

It's not a question of what we know, it's a question of definition. Energy is a quantity that is defined by science in a particular way. It's very like momentum and is conserved for a similar reason. Energy is conserved because the laws of physics don't change with time, momentum is conserved because they don't vary from place to place. Special relativity combines the two into the energy-momentum 4-vector. Each reference frame will see energy and momentum conserved by they will disagree about how much of each there is in a particular object or system.

Again, see the wiki article I linked in #40.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
It's not a question of what we know, it's a question of definition.
Hang on........ those might be your rules, here, but the thread title directs us towards bigger things, more unknown places, where our physics might be rather wobbly.

Energy is a quantity that is defined by science in a particular way. It's very like momentum and is conserved for a similar reason. Energy is conserved because the laws of physics don't change with time, momentum is conserved because they don't vary from place to place.
We see and hear that they do change, from place to place. We hear that physics might turn inside out in some places, and all places are part of 'God' (as seen by my kind of deism)

Special relativity combines the two into the energy-momentum 4-vector. Each reference frame will see energy and momentum conserved by they will disagree about how much of each there is in a particular object or system.

Again, see the wiki article I linked in #40.

Yes..... just here.... you can have a gold star for all that, but in the realms of what might be happening around our universe, and what in heavens' name is happening beyond, your rules don't count for much, and God needs to include 'the lot'.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
And I don't know how dark matter and antimatter fit in to your equations..... any clues?

Antimatter is well understood. Dark matter seems to be some form of matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically, so we can't directly see it. None of this will change the definition of energy. It's a physical quantity that has a certain definition that is measured in particular units (kg⋅m^2⋅s^−2).

I'm not claiming we know how the universe started or are sure about what happens in black holes (although they see to conform the general relativity as far as we can tell) but none of that is suddenly going to change what energy means, any more than it will change what momentum, pressure, temperature, etc. mean.
 

HonestJoe

Well-Known Member
Before God there was no energy and to create energy you need energy so that must mean that God is made of energy and can create energy .
If there was a "before God" when there was no energy but God is made of energy, how could God come to be in the first place?

The only way any of this could theoretically work would be is all of the physical laws we know of are limited to "inside" the universe and whatever exists outside and "before" the universe follows entirely different physical laws. Of course, a that point the entire thing becomes 100% speculative and therefore entirely meaningless beyond mildly entertaining thought experiments.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Hang on........ those might be your rules...

I'm not talking about my 'rules', I'm explaining how science defines energy, that's why I gave references.
We see and hear that they do change, from place to place. We hear that physics might turn inside out in some places...

As far as I know, we have no evidence at all that the laws of physics change from place to place. In fact the whole or relativistic cosmology assumes that they don't, and it seems to be a very good match to what we can observe.

Not sure what you mean by "turn inside out", perhaps you mean black holes, where the ideas of space and time swap over (relative to a distant observer) so the 'distance' to the centre becomes timelike? That is actually a prediction of the laws of physics we know.
Yes..... just here.... you can have a gold star for all that, but in the realms of what might be happening around our universe...

We don't have any evidence (so far) that "around our universe" is a thing.

As I said, I'm not trying to tell you that we understand everything (we obviously don't), but one of the ways we go about understanding things is to define certain quantities, like momentum, energy, electrical resistance, power and so on, because they are useful measurements that help to understand and make predictions based on theories.

If we discover some 'larger' physics that goes beyond what we know, then maybe energy or some of the other quantities will cease to be all that useful in certain circumstances (as I quoted, general relativity itself makes energy conservation for the universe an open question), and we may have to define other, more useful quantities, or maybe some definitions might change. The fact remains, that energy (as defined today) has a specific meaning in the context of physics, and it isn't 'stuff', things can't be energy, they can only have energy.
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
And you know this how?
Logical deduction and reasoning !

1. If I could stop all motion in the visual universe , the kE would cease and the visual universe would become a lesser energy state

2.If I could then take away all the visual matter , again the universe would decrease in energy furthermore

3. If I could then take away any spatial fields that are indistinguishable from space , the space would be finally absent of energy

4. I can't take away the space

Energy cannot exist without there being two minimum componets that converge to make 1 unless contained by energy with two minimum components .
 

RestlessSoul

Well-Known Member
Antimatter is well understood. Dark matter seems to be some form of matter that doesn't interact electromagnetically, so we can't directly see it. None of this will change the definition of energy. It's a physical quantity that has a certain definition that is measured in particular units (kg⋅m^2⋅s^−2).

I'm not claiming we know how the universe started or are sure about what happens in black holes (although they see to conform the general relativity as far as we can tell) but none of that is suddenly going to change what energy means, any more than it will change what momentum, pressure, temperature, etc. mean.


It’s not the definition or nature of energy that is called into question by quantum theory; it’s the nature of matter, the fundamental fabric from which the natural world is woven. 100 years ago, Erwin Schrodinger said it made more sense to think of fundamental particles as spontaneous events rather than entities.

So what is real? Is the material world composed of particles, waves, or quantum fluctuations? In each case, in the words of Richard Feynman the answer may be “yeah, but not quite..”

Is the molecular dance of existence composed of any fundamental substance at all? If we can question that, then we must surely question everything we think we know, including the solidity of the ground beneath our feet.
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
It’s not the definition or nature of energy that is called into question by quantum theory; it’s the nature of matter, the fundamental fabric from which the natural world is woven. 100 years ago, Erwin Schrodinger said it made more sense to think of fundamental particles as spontaneous events rather than entities.

So what is real? Is the material world composed of particles, waves, or quantum fluctuations? In each case, in the words of Richard Feynman the answer may be “yeah, but not quite..”

Is the molecular dance of existence composed of any fundamental substance at all? If we can question that, then we must surely question everything we think we know, including the solidity of the ground beneath our feet.
Just think of matter as 50/50 and either of the components existence is dependent to the other half .
 

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
It's all guesswork, whoever makes any kind of guess or claim. :)

Professor Cox says we don't know, so that's good enough for me. .......... ergo...Beteljuice is made of strawberries! :p

No, some claims are backed up by repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

BTW, i know Brian reasonably well, following his slapped hand for 'astrology is woo' he ensures his public comments are not volatile. He enjoys his TV work
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
I'm not talking about my 'rules', I'm explaining how science defines energy, that's why I gave references.

As far as I know, we have no evidence at all that the laws of physics change from place to place. In fact the whole or relativistic cosmology assumes that they don't, and it seems to be a very good match to what we can observe.

Not sure what you mean by "turn inside out", perhaps you mean black holes, where the ideas of space and time swap over (relative to a distant observer) so the 'distance' to the centre becomes timelike? That is actually a prediction of the laws of physics we know.


We don't have any evidence (so far) that "around our universe" is a thing.

As I said, I'm not trying to tell you that we understand everything (we obviously don't), but one of the ways we go about understanding things is to define certain quantities, like momentum, energy, electrical resistance, power and so on, because they are useful measurements that help to understand and make predictions based on theories.

If we discover some 'larger' physics that goes beyond what we know, then maybe energy or some of the other quantities will cease to be all that useful in certain circumstances (as I quoted, general relativity itself makes energy conservation for the universe an open question), and we may have to define other, more useful quantities, or maybe some definitions might change. The fact remains, that energy (as defined today) has a specific meaning in the context of physics, and it isn't 'stuff', things can't be energy, they can only have energy.

Having read your posts, and wanting any information from elsewhere to back up your points I googled, 'can energy exist alone'. This was the very first response that I saw:-

About 523,000,000 results (0.55 seconds)
Search Results
Radio waves, light, and other forms of radiation all have energy, but do not need matter. So yes, you absolutely can have energy without matter, in empty space

I can grasp the idea that all radio, light and other radiated energies come from 'things', but the separation of matter and energy and antimatter and dark energy is suggested......

For myself I don't have any problem with the threads' title because I perceive that every thing, force and anything else is all part of the 'whole'... and some people think of the whole as 'God'. So whatever is and any nothingness in between, that's the closest that I personally can get to perceiving 'God'. But this is all so unimaginably vast (our universe may be a tiny part of everything) that any God could not possibly be aware of, or involved with a recent species of beings on a fleck of dust in a minor solar system.....the idea that God is interested in us seems absurd to me.
 

oldbadger

Skanky Old Mongrel!
No, some claims are backed up by repeatable, falsifiable evidence.

BTW, i know Brian reasonably well, following his slapped hand for 'astrology is woo' he ensures his public comments are not volatile. He enjoys his TV work
You know Prof Cox........ excellent. :)
I like to watch Prof Cox's various series, but there is a problem for me........ his voice is so soporific that I fall asleep mid program. Can't help it. So I record everything and then when I play it back (and wake up during replays) I can return and review, and often wake up again.
 

TheBrokenSoul

Active Member
You know Prof Cox........ excellent. :)
I like to watch Prof Cox's various series, but there is a problem for me........ his voice is so soporific that I fall asleep mid program. Can't help it. So I record everything and then when I play it back (and wake up during replays) I can return and review, and often wake up again.
Previously on Buffy the vampire slayer :)

 
Top