h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'll bite.

I'm trying to understand you Warner, so bear with me.

Is your God the sum total of all forms of energy?

i.e the aggregate forms of potential, kinetic, thermal, elastic, gravitational, electric, chemical and nuclear.

And behaves in ways which are predictable i.e will be conserved or will do a defined amount of work?

You are right, that Einstein related energy and matter, which is a way of saying matter is a specialised form of energy and this is why when hydrogen bombs go 'bang' - they *really* go 'bang'.

But two thoughts occur:


1.) Energy despite being interchangeable as a state of matter is not immaterial. You can for example measure how much potential energy a ball has by dangling it underneath a newton meter. So you think - what? - that God is the energy holding the ball up, or that he goes by many names: Jesus, Yahweh and 1 newton?

2.) This is unlike any theology I've ever heard of. No, wait let me check that. It seems you are embracing a quiet literal deism, bordering of pantheism. If that's so, it puts our discussions about Darwin's deism into a more intelligible context. But I don't see how 'god as energy' is supposed to listen to prayers, have children, save the imperilled, forgive sins etc. Unless, of course, you don't think energy does any of those things either? In which case our positions are closer than I had realised because I think prayer is a waste of time too.


But let me get back to the point: Energy is a natural and material force in this universe and submits to science and scientific rationale on a daily basis. It is not immaterial.

What we mean when we say we are still waiting for someone to tell us what "non-material" means, and how non-material things interact with material ones, is this.

Christians think God created the universe and all life within it.



Now you've previously said to me, you can't imagine life evolving without 'oversight' and you've defended here that you think there is no material evidence for god.

So which is it? Either god is something which, according to you, oversees and somehow guides physical processes, or it's somethign for which there is no evidence, from which one can infer not actually part of the universe - and this can and will be defended by christians who claim god is outside of space and time - and our response to that is then HOW. How can something non spatial, non temporal and non material affect anythign that goes on in this

As per usual we have the normal 'playing with words' which suggest different things in different contexts, to confuse discussion.

Within the context of Physics the conception of 'energy' is a a way of explaining how the physical universe works. Any simpleton who learns basic science at school knows it's a description of the capacity of systems to do 'work'. One can go deeper and deeper into our present understanding of physical laws. But the important thing is that such 'words' mean something within the context of science and ultimately rely on 'evidence' that is collected via the scientific method, and used to make predictions about how things work. If these predictions are not confirmed by evidence...eg when you make a cup of tea and the water only sometimes boils when a certain amount of heat energy is applied, the theory is thrown out. We know this is not the case though in this example.

And then in a *completely different context*, the word 'energy' is used to somehow suggest a relation to the conception of the word 'god'.

Playing with words and language like this in different contexts is completely meaningless. It ignores the basis on which communication, via language, is used by human beings in the usual way to make any meaningful sense.

We have had years of such deliberate obsfuscation and muddle produced on this thread and others. Playing with words used in totally different contexts is the favoured modus operendi.

My prediction is that it will continue for a good few years yet. The evidence continues to confirm this tactic.

Bum!

I posted too soon.

[continued...]

Now you've previously said to me, you can't imagine life evolving without 'oversight'
<./>F19585?thread=6182234&skip=63&show=1</.>
and you've defended here that you think there is no material evidence for god.

So which is it?

Either god is something which, according to you, creates, oversees and somehow guides physical processes, or it's something for which there is no evidence. From which one can infer not actually part of the universe. And this can and will be defended by christians who claim god is outside of space and time - and our response to that is then HOW? How can something non spatial, non temporal and non material affect anything that goes on in this spatial, temporal and material universe, particularly in the ways that it is claimed that it does? Or, rather, is it the case that god is material, spatial and temporal, in which case where is he and does he like sugar in his coffee?

Now I said at the outset, I really am trying to understand your point of view, so pick up on anything I mischaracterise and correct me.

Is your position that god is material and is energy?

Because having a definitive answer on that would help.

I hope whilst setting out my questions, I've made clear that energy is a physical property of this universe, which can be measured and quantified. It is usually defined as the ability to do a particular piece of work. i.e Jame's Watts steam engines which are the literal example of thermo-dynamic principles, or to put it another way, an exchange and transfer of energy.

Now in the interest of full disclosure, I am not a scientist in training or employ (you asked for one) but in the inimitable words of Stephen Fry:

Have I visited every star in the universe? No.
Can I read books? Yes.

And this is why there is hope because the knowledge is out there, if only people took the time to try and understand it.

and what Effer's said:

This is a well worn track for us. Deliberate obfuscation is a favoured tactic and we will call you on it.

But look on the bright side - if your theology is based on an unintentioned confusion of words: then you've come to the right place.

We are here to help.

I'm not sure if that's fair. Questions like the following, although involving a misconception, are not necessarily products of delibarate obfuscation.

<>

To add to what Clive said. Mass *is* energy. Energy *is* mass. We can't really say what it is, because it's the fundamental form of everything, and so can't be defined in terms outside itself. Nearest I can get is "Energy is an abstract conserved quantity."

Energy may also be viewed as the mathematical expression of cause and effect, which is also an abstract conserved quantity. Also crucial here is that cause and effect operates according to rules, which has implications regarding "what there is". A22853883 and the appended discussion, with which some of you will already be familiar, are be worth reading. Basically a refutation of dualism.

Noggin

Okay well let be clear what I meant by that.

I was not accusing Warner of obfuscation, although we each know examples of when religious arguments have used that tactic, I think I went on to say if they are operating under a misconception then lets clear up this confusion. Atheists rationalists scientists alike are all for clarity of thought and expression.

What was it Socrates said? The unexamined life isn't worth living? Well I say let's get examining. Our misconceptions won't survive long.

<<. But the important thing is that such 'words' mean something within the context of science and ultimately rely on 'evidence' that is collected via the scientific method, and used to make predictions about how things work. If these predictions are not confirmed by evidence...eg when you make a cup of tea and the water only sometimes boils when a certain amount of heat energy is applied, the theory is thrown out. We know this is not the case though in this example>>

this is a case of prophesy

and all the true prophesies are believed because they are proven

can any religion apply this same method to their prophets

science has better prophets than god!!!!!!!!?

>What is energy ? Is it material or non-material?<

Yes well we've been there endless times before here haven't we? The word 'energy' is used in English in a variety of ways, eg I feel very energetic today; or...

' Energy is the capacity of a physical system to perform work. Energy exists in several forms such as heat, kinetic or mechanical energy, light, potential energy, electrical, or other forms.
According to the law of conservation of energy, the total energy of a system remains constant, though energy may transform into another form. Two billiard balls colliding, for example, may come to rest, with the resulting energy becoming sound and perhaps a bit of heat at the point of collision.

The SI unit of energy is the joule (J) or newton-meter (N * m). The joule is also the SI unit of work.'

http://physics.about.com/od/glossary/g/energy.htm

I don't see the relevance of asking questions about something so context specific as *energy* without defining what is meant. I'm pretty much bored with theists jumping on the bandwagon of words used in science. The word *energy* in physics rests as much as on the complex maths as the empiricism.

If people want a proper grown up discussion about the complexities of language and meaning of words in different contexts fine.

It seems pretty clear to me that certain words like eg energy when used in science are not a description of a thing..but shorthand for processes resting on evidence. I've yet to come across someone coming from the god stance who fronts up to that. It always comes across to me as a certain refusal to accept the complexities of communication and an inability to adimit that the concept of 'faith' in something called god is essentially nonsensical, as it does not rest on evidence.

The sad fact is these people just lack intellectual and emotional balls*

*balls - in *this context* meaning chutzpah, ie NOT round objects frequently used in a variety of sports, or the things dangling between males' legs

Ed

(Re 14102)

>Given, then, that the Big G plainly *does* allow innocent kiddies to die painfully in mudslides, etc. etc...might this not lead you to question his parentage?<

Of course, Ed. No one who believes in God can fail to ask 'why?'

But there are joys too!! Do you have kids? When they tell you they love you, do you casually dismiss their words by telling them that all they're experiencing is a throw-back from pre-welfare state cavemen days, when kids needed to stick around their parents in order to keep the species going?!?! (Cos that's what you believe isn't it?)

Sorry, I'm being childish. Back to a serious answer...I simply refer you to Jesus himself again. Look at what he did and taught and you'll see that suffering is something that God is keen to eliminate. God and suffering still remain a mystery, I grant you, but, unlike many good people around here, I'm not prepared to get angry about something that is beyond human understanding. I feel that God has revealed something of himself to humankind in the person of Jesus Christ. I don't know all the answers but I've accepted the good news of Christ.

Mikey2

warner

No, you aren't answering at all. You are just pointing me towards something someone wrote 2000years ago or something approximating what was written back then.

I don;t want to know what some stone age bloke thought I want to know what supposedly rational people in the 21st Century think.

I specifically want to know what Michea1 thinks about his wonderful god and what his wonderful god did to Martin and how he can defend his god without scurring back to a book but thinking for himself.

<>

Suffering is only a mystery if you believe in an omnipotent, omnibenevolent god.

Noggin

Michea1.

Firstly, NEVER accuse me of 'Theology' thank you.



Um, yes...I am a human being not a heartless ****.



No, I am angry that someone has had their mind so screwed up that they think someone they love can do such horrible things to them and yet accept it...you may want to read up on 'domestic abuse' it will explain to you the victim/abuser psychology manifest in Martins and other CHristians minds. Victims of domestic abuse tend to go for counselling to help them get out of the abuse cycle...



No I have read the OT and have SEEN that your god is cruel and has ardered people to do that cruelness...



Once, again pure selectiveness from a Christian. You merely look at what your god is supposed to have done through Jesus Christ and yet you ignore everything in the OT everything that he supposedly allows now, testaments from people like Martin who are happy to put up with the abuse your god reigns down on the people who love him.

Look at your saviour...his destiny planned by his father was to be nailed to a tree and killed...OK, he rose a few days later so wasn't really dead but lets not get facts in the way.

If you look at serial killers and mass murderers you will no doubt find their off-spring to be balanced and probably trying to make amends for their parent...that does not make their parent a good person or their psychopathic acts OK.



Of course it doesn't explain it. It certainly doesn't explain WHY you think Martin was correct in his thoughts you have just said 'through Jesus Christ I have seen what my god can do'...not heard that line before...says nothing at all.

>But there are joys too!! Do you have kids? When they tell you they love you, do you casually dismiss their words by telling them that all they're experiencing is a throw-back from pre-welfare state cavemen days, when kids needed to stick around their parents in order to keep the species going?!?! (Cos that's what you believe isn't it?)< micky

Classic. Bornagains love people feeling love, so long as it's not between people of the same sex and if it is....oh it's the devil being busy...And then they are so quick to suddenly say gay/lesbian sex is unnatural..... (uncavemanlike).

The hypocrisy of the bornagain knows no limits.

concerning last evening's prayer experiment:



it didn't work.





As for the odd recommendation for unbelievers to read Job for consolation:



What?! Consolation in, to paraphrase, 'Don't even think of examining the world, don't even consider whether God acts in fairness. Just suck it up, insects!'

This divine lesson is also given both by 'Moses' and by Jesus in their commandments to not examine God (just fall into line and do what your leaders tell you to do). There is certainly a large amount of truth in the idea that the Judeo-Christian religions are a means of keeping the Plebians in their place.

m1/2.

Fine. Call suffering a 'mystery' if you wish. But at least acknowledge that it's evidence against an omnipotent, omnibenovelent god.

Jaysus! I do wish the religious would stop co-opting the good, materialist word 'Energy', which has a precise meaning in physics, to stand in for something vague and fluffy that science hasn't thought of.

>>But there are joys too!! Do you have kids? When they tell you they love you, do you casually dismiss their words by telling them that all they're experiencing is a throw-back from pre-welfare state cavemen days, when kids needed to stick around their parents in order to keep the species going?!?! (Cos that's what you believe isn't it?)

Well, m1/2...you've never asked me what I believe. It's a little more complicated than that...but, sure, it's about right. The love I feel for for my children is, indeed, a purely materialistic, biochemical phenomenon. But it's no less powerful or central to my being for all that. It's all I have!

But isn't it glorious how we cavepersons (we're biologically identical to cavepeople, btw) have been driven by our biochemistry to build such things as welfare states? *That's* the kind of thing that gives meaning to life.

I think that if the faithful are going to talk about energy as if it is something mystical or spiritual, then it is understandable if people regard their religious as being on a par with Dragon Ball Z.

I'm quite amused by the idea that at one and the same time the idea is put about that God is Love, performs miracles very ocassionally etc, and that he is also responsible for us being sure that *everytime* we put the kettle on, tea will miraculously appear.