What is the difference between your God and mine?

[PureX]

"Gods", then. Capitalization is nothing but a matter of ego.

The fact of the matter is you said "Theists", which are people that include more than your monotheistic worship of a single god. A single deity. Your god may be a "mystery source", but this does not go for all Theists.

I am not a "monotheist". You're jumping to conclusions not in evidence, here.

I am aware that theism is a very broad philosophical umbrella. I am also aware that people commonly mix nature and God/gods up together, resulting in a whole plethora of theological paradigms. But the most universal, and most common thread among them is the "creator-god" concept. Which is what I was speaking to. That is God as the great mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that it. Even as an agnostic theist (philosophical Taoist/Christian) I can relate to that concept. And so, I think can a great many other religious and non-religious theists. What's important, I think, here, is that it IS a mystery. Not a rock or a tree or a feeling or a dogma or a label.

 

[firedragon]

It is just a theory...many people do not consider it that probable.

By many people do you mean majority or a few?

Anyway, who specifically are you speaking about and why do you think their negation of the Big Bang theory as the most probable theory is valid?

 

[PureX]

It isn't anything at all in and of itself. At most it's a property of things (or systems of things). It really is no more mysterious than momentum.

How does existence (any-thing) begin with a "property"? Properties are an expression of order through some medium. So what is the medium of 'energy' if energy is a "property"? And how can a property originate a universe (in the Big Bang) without there having been some order and medium within which to be expressed?

I think you're trying to hide the mystery behind scientific sounding platitudes (scientism) that don't really tell us anything.

It keeps track of the fact that physical laws don't change over time, just like momentum does for space. It is entirely an aspect of how (known) physical laws work. If the laws of physics change, then energy can appear or disappear. You seem to have a kind of science fiction view of it, rather than science.

I take a philosophical view of it because science cannot address the real questions, here. As any real scientist will agree. Understanding something about how energy behaves does not tell us what energy is. Nor what originated it. Nor what ELSE it may do that we are as yet unaware of.

All of it. You're confusing an effect with a cause. Energy exists because of the way things are, not the other way around.

Energy IS the "way things are". The question of origin, however, remains. How? From what? To what end? And why?

This is just nonsense. The limitations of our knowledge don't change the meaning of words.

Of course it does. The meaning of our words change all the time based on new information. Words are not a reality unto themselves. They are only artificial labels we apply to our current experience and understanding of reality - which is always changing. And so, so are the words we use to refer to it.

You can speculate all you want about how everything we know of having come about through something outside of what we know of, but when you're talking about 'existence' that means all that exists, regardless of the limitations of our knowledge.

How can we mean "all that exists" when we don't know or experience "all that exists"? That word, for us, is just hyperbole. Like "objective reality" is. Or "perfection" is. Or "infinity", or "God" is.

 

[ratiocinator]

How does existence (any-thing) begin with a "property"? Properties are an expression of order through some medium. So what is the medium of 'energy' if energy is a "property"? And how can a property originate a universe (in the Big Bang) without there having been some order and medium within which to be expressed?

You're assuming your misunderstanding. Energy is not how things began; it did not originate the universe; it did not cause the big bang. Energy doesn't exist without laws of physics that don't vary with time.

I take a philosophical view of it because science cannot address the real questions, here. As any real scientist will agree. Understanding something about how energy behaves does not tell us what energy is. Nor what originated it. Nor what ELSE it may do that we are as yet unaware of.

Just more misunderstanding. Energy is like momentum or angular momentum. We no more need philosophy to understand energy than we need it to understand momentum. We don't get this kind of nonsense with people claiming that describing how momentum behaves doesn't tell us what it is or what originated it. Did you even read the article I quoted? Energy and momentum are combined even in special relativity and they are both just quantities that exist and are conserved due to translation symmetries of space and time.

The time-translation symmetry of physics is the reason why there is a conserved quantity that we've labelled 'energy' - that's it. There is no mysterious 'stuff' called 'energy' that is more fundamental than time and physical laws.

Energy IS the "way things are".

Nonsense.

How can we mean "all that exists" when we don't know or experience "all that exists"?

This isn't difficult either. We can say "all of space" or "all of time" or "all matter" without knowing the limitations of either or even if they have any.

 

[PureX]

You're assuming your misunderstanding. Energy is not how things began; it did not originate the universe; it did not cause the big bang. Energy doesn't exist without laws of physics that don't vary with time.

You're still arguing semantics. Energy is the force that's being expressed, The WAY it's being expressed are those "properties" you're referring to. And those properties are being determined by those "laws of physics". Quantifying the properties of energy expressed does not tell us what energy IS. So far as we can tell, what energy IS, is a 'phenomenal will for something to happen' (for lack of better terminology). I understand why you keep referring to our quantification of the "properties" of energy, because we have nothing else, so far, to grab onto, conceptually. But I am not an adherent to "scientism", so I don't have to pretend that quantized properties somehow erase or resolve the question of medium. Or even more important, the source of the order (limitation) being imposed on it, to produce these properties

Just more misunderstanding. Energy is like momentum or angular momentum. We no more need philosophy to understand energy than we need it to understand momentum.

Well, you clearly need something, because momentum is relational. It doesn't exist except as an observed relationship within a complex of medium. If energy is a property, like momentum, what is the medium within which it's relation is being observed? You seem to be trying to present it as an isolated phenomenon that somehow popped into being of it's own accord. Yet it's relational, so clearly this didn't happen.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

I am not a "monotheist". You're jumping to conclusions not in evidence, here.

"Not in evidence" except for your professed religion of Christian and your affinity for Captain God with the Capital "G".

I am also aware that people commonly mix nature and God/gods up together, resulting in a whole plethora of theological paradigms. But the most universal, and most common thread among them is the "creator-god" concept. Which is what I was speaking to.

Then you need to be more clear as to what you're speaking to, rather than relying on broad-brush terms that include a great many beliefs that do not adhere to this "great mystery". However, no. The "Creator God" archetype is not so universal, and is quite often not so "mysterious" as you are claiming. In polytheistic faiths (which are many) this "Creator" archetype is a joint effort between many gods, and more a Creation Event rather than them serving as nothing more than The Creator. For example, Óðinn, Vili and Vé slaying the Ymir and fashioning Miðgarðr from their corpse. That is a creation event; those deities are not considered "The Creators". Neither are they a "Great Mystery", Source of Sustenance, or Purpose of All.

You insist that this manner of god are a mystery, yet the blind man will insist the room is dark.

 

[blü 2]

How does existence (any-thing) begin with a "property"? Properties are an expression of order through some medium. So what is the medium of 'energy' if energy is a "property"? And how can a property originate a universe (in the Big Bang) without there having been some order and medium within which to be expressed?

I think you're trying to hide the mystery behind scientific sounding platitudes (scientism) that don't really tell us anything.
I take a philosophical view of it because science cannot address the real questions, here. As any real scientist will agree. Understanding something about how energy behaves does not tell us what energy is. Nor what originated it. Nor what ELSE it may do that we are as yet unaware of.
Energy IS the "way things are". The question of origin, however, remains. How? From what? To what end? And why?
Of course it does. The meaning of our words change all the time based on new information. Words are not a reality unto themselves. They are only artificial labels we apply to our current experience and understanding of reality - which is always changing. And so, so are the words we use to refer to it.
How can we mean "all that exists" when we don't know or experience "all that exists"? That word, for us, is just hyperbole. Like "objective reality" is. Or "perfection" is. Or "infinity", or "God" is.

Much as I might agree with the other voice in your post above, the words are not mine.

 

[ratiocinator]

You're still arguing semantics. Energy is the force that's being expressed, The WAY it's being expressed are those "properties" you're referring to. And those properties are being determined by those "laws of physics". Quantifying the properties of energy expressed does not tell us what energy IS. So far as we can tell, what energy IS, is a 'phenomenal will for something to happen' (for lack of better terminology). I understand why you keep referring to our quantification of the "properties" of energy, because we have nothing else, so far, to grab onto, conceptually. But I am not an adherent to "scientism", so I don't have to pretend that quantized properties somehow erase or resolve the question of medium. Or even more important, the source of the order (limitation) being imposed on it, to produce these properties

This really isn't a question of semantics and energy is most certainly not a force (that's something entirely different). It's not about scientism. The word energy comes from science and the only precise definitions are from science and mathematics.

The phrase 'phenomenal will for something to happen' means nothing to me at all. You seem to have made something up and are insisting on using a word for it that already has a perfectly good scientific meaning.

Well, you clearly need something, because momentum is relational. It doesn't exist except as an observed relationship within a complex of medium. If energy is a property, like momentum, what is the medium within which it's relation is being observed?

I don't know what you mean by 'medium' in either case. However, energy is relative and often has to to with relationships. As I've said, energy and momentum are not really separate in relativity. Just taking special relativity, I assume that you know that time and space are relative. So if we take two events (points is space-time) then different observers (frames of reference) will measure different distances and times between them. There is however one thing all observers can calculate and agree on, and that is the space-time interval (the four dimensional equivalent of distance) between them.

Energy and momentum are related in a similar way. Different observers will look at an abject (or system of objects) and will differ as to what the total momentum and total energy of that system is. However, just like time and space between events they are related to each other, in this case by a single energy-momentum 4-vector. Energy is the component of the vector that points in the time direction but the time direction differs for different observers.

There's a whole lot about the science of energy, mass, and momentum here: Mass and Energy

If you're not interested in how the term is used and defined in science, then my response is that you're simply not talking about energy and I'd like to know what evidence you have for the existence of whatever it is you mean when you say 'energy'.

 

[SalixIncendium]

"Gods", then. Capitalization is nothing but a matter of ego.

That's not how I learned it.

Capitalization when it's not at the beginning of a sentence, indicates a proper noun.

"God" with a capital "G" is a proper noun, a name, usually used in reference to or associated with the God of Abraham (though other religions, even Hinduism, use the term to in reference to their own principle deity).

Writing "god" with a lower case "g" simply points to a deity. For example: Ganesha is one of many gods in Hinduism. The "g" isn't capitalized because it's not used as a proper noun. In this case, Ganesha is the proper noun.

Another example: Monotheistic Abrahamics recognize only one god, whose name is God.

It really has little to do with ego and everything to do with grammar.

 

[PureX]

"Not in evidence" except for your professed religion of Christian and your affinity for Captain God with the Capital "G".

Non-religious, philosophical, agnostic, Taoist/Christian. Not exactly middle of the road.

Then you need to be more clear as to what you're speaking to, rather than relying on broad-brush terms that include a great many beliefs that do not adhere to this "great mystery".

They nearly ALL adhere to the idea of God as the 'great mystery'. In fact, why don't you list the ones that do not. I think the problem here is that you are confusing the stories, images, and other forms of religious artifice created to represent that mystery in a way that people can relate to, with the mystery that they are meant to represent. You seem to want to pick on monotheistic Christianity which both is and is not monotheistic, and that declares "God" to be beyond human comprehension regularly even as it tends to make statements on God's behalf with equal regularity. It's exactly this kind of innate ideological/practical contradiction that is a universal characteristic of theism, and particularly of religious theism.

However, no. The "Creator God" archetype is not so universal, and is quite often not so "mysterious" as you are claiming. In polytheistic faiths (which are many) this "Creator" archetype is a joint effort between many gods, and more a Creation Event rather than them serving as nothing more than The Creator. For example, Óðinn, Vili and Vé slaying the Ymir and fashioning Miðgarðr from their corpse. That is a creation event; those deities are not considered "The Creators". Neither are they a "Great Mystery", Source of Sustenance, or Purpose of All.

All the polytheistic religions that I am aware of also involve the concept of a singular omni-divine source.

 

[PureX]

Much as I might agree with the other voice in your post above, the words are not mine.

Corrected.

 

[PureX]

The phrase 'phenomenal will for something to happen' means nothing to me at all.

Yes, I can see that. And you clearly have no interest in entertaining a different way of thinking.

 

[ratiocinator]

Yes, I can see that. And you clearly have no interest in entertaining a different way of thinking.

It's not really about ways of thinking, it's about using appropriate terminology. Energy is a well defined scientific term. You seem to be talking about something else entirely, which wouldn't be much of a problem if you hadn't called it 'energy'. And, of course, you cannot invoke energy conservation unless you're using the scientific definition and recognise that the conservation is due to the laws of physics not changing.

 

[The Kilted Heathen]

Capitalization when it's not at the beginning of a sentence, indicates a proper noun.

And it still reduces to ego, even taking grammar into account. "God" taken as a name is, as you say, an assertion that no other gods "exist" while simultaneously trivializing other gods to "little 'g' gods". On the other hand I've seen polytheists respond to this by utilizing capitalization in their use of Gods. It is an egotistical theological stance that utilizes a class of spirit (god: "that which is worshiped") as the One and Only, capitalizing as a sign of superiority and dominance. The god of Abraham's name is Elohim, Ha-Shem, YHVH, etc. Elsewise would be like your name being Human.

They nearly ALL adhere to the idea of God as the 'great mystery'. In fact, why don't you list the ones that do not.

First I'm going to need you to define - clearly - what you mean by "great mystery".

All the polytheistic religions that I am aware of also involve the concept of a singular omni-divine source.

Then I would argue very much that you are not aware of many polytheistic religions, if any at all.

 

[syo]

Pagan Gods are way different than the christian one. Why? Well, all pagan Gods make sense.

 

[lukethethird]

What is the difference between your God and mine?
My God is make believe.

 

[Magical Wand]

This one goes to the Atheist who 'believes' they dont believe in any creator.
I love reading scientific publications, (and hopefully understand most of its content) and somehow learned that the Atheist likes to say they are sure there is no such a thing as a God.
Some will say, due to the abscence of evidence, they can conclude that there is no such a thing. Others simply just say, there is not, period.

The Christian, on the other hand 'believes' in a supernatural Creator. Note I say BELIEVES.

For some reason or another, the Atheist just hates such a prospect, and from experience I found that the Atheist just hates the thought of the existance of a Creator God!
To themit is sacred scientific blasphemy, and anyone saying there is a God, must be set on their place to display to the world that not only are such believers wrong, but totally in disregard of science, and somehow not so intelligent.

And, again out of experience, I find that the atheist wont hesitate to turn vulgar towards the Christian believer, forcing institutions, organisations, and even law to silent such people of this belief.

Why they are so arrogant against the Christian believer is beyond my understanding, but again, when I was an Atheist, I also thought it wize to verbally attack anyone who spoke about God in my presence.

However, Now that I learned that there is God, I find the Atheist is actually not so sincere about their facts and beliefs.

It is the old story of who was first, the egg or....
Lets look at what the facts show:
The Christian God

• The Atheist normally claims that there is no scientific method to determine the existance of a Creator, such as the Christians' God.
• This Christian God exists outside the realm of Time and Space, is everlasting, and does not have an end. (exactly what it means to exist outside of Time)
• This God does not exist in space, He is not bound by an outline, area, or physical entity. (exactly what it means to exist outside of Space)
• This Creator was the cause of everything we know exists today, from the smallest of particle, to the grandest of Universes.
• Before all this, only God was.

The Scientific God (which the Atheist adores)

• Before the Big Bang, only the laws of physics existed, and with the forces of natural gravity, somehow a vacuum bubble appeared, and through this uneven gravitational fields, more bubbles grew to exponentional sizes.
• Particles, much smaller that what we can immagine, even smaller than the Higgs Bousson particles, popped up in more vacuumes in this false vacuum, and matter came into being.
• This matter then, with the help of gravitational fields, increased so spectacularly, that it formed the centrepoint of the universe as we know it, and exploaded into what we know as the universe today.

This is the consenses of scientists such as Lindae, Hawkins, etc.

OK, now the angle.
The scientist believes that the whole of creation came into being due to "gravitational forces and the laws of physics.
If the Laws of Physics and Gravity kick started the universe, where did this gravitational fields bound by the laws of physics came from?

The scientist claim, it was there before anything existed, in a state external from space and Time, IOW, it always existed before there was space and time.

Why does it mean that this gravitational field was bound by the laws of physics?
Because without any intellectual regulations, and natural laws, this gravitational fields would not be able to kick start this Big Bang that contains laws and rules to abide by.

Therefore, even the atheist believes the whole creation was Created by a Creator, that existed forever, has intellect, and are not contained within the known space of the universe.

Now, what is the difference between your god, and the Christian God?

Can you present a single quote by a prominent cosmologist saying the physical universe was created out of the laws of physics?

 

[lukethethird]

I agree with "Hugo's" primary point: that the "laws of physics" are not random, nor do they generate random results. Existence is the result of a specific set of forces that generate incredible variety and degree of complexity. And atheist or not, like it or not, this begs the question: ... to what end? To what purpose? These are the questions that all human disciplines are ultimately exploring: art, religion, science, and philosophy,

Purpose is a human construct.

 

[lukethethird]

Can you present a single quote by a prominent cosmologist saying the physical universe was created out of the laws of physics?

We know he can't.

 

[lukethethird]

What is the difference between your God and mine?
Let me guess, yours is real.