Does God Exist?

[Blaggard]

Suppose that beon is detected, perhaps by some kind of exotic magnetic field interferometer observing it leaving the brain post-death, or even better, leaving and re-entering in a drug-induced out-of-body event. Suppose a general purpose beon detector is subsequently developed, allowing anyone to determine if someone (such as an Alzheimer patient) is actually "home." Such a device would also be useful for detecting the extremely painful states of surgery patients for whom the anesthetics failed. But what effect would such an experiment have upon Beon Theory, or any other theory that predicted the discovery?

Would it be labeled "scientific?"

I think not, until at least a half-century has passed during which the dogmatists in both science and religious corners have died off. Establishment scientists would be reluctant to allow any notion that might interfere with their insistence that every aspect of the universe must be explained without recourse to intelligence, especially if intelligence was indeed the cause of it.

If you could do the experiment and it was repeated by others and the same results obtained science would have to accept it as being proven and theoretical or would have to at least attempt to show there wasn't some other explanation.

No offence el but for someone whose never dealt in science you do seem to be woefully assured of what science would do in the face of evidence. The fact is though no such experiment exists, no evidence for beons exist and so it is still very much your dream.

[Greylorn Ell]

It is possible to start out as an instrumentalist and move to a position of talking about unobservable entities. Most of the time this is hard to avoid when it comes to science. However, the scientist hasn't moved from the position of talking about existence in scientific terms. The problem I have is when one starts out talking about scientific existence and then slides over to talking about EXISTENCE and BEING. That is to say, a scientific explanation for God, Gods, and other such intelligent agencies.

I am not against this. I am just against it being called science.

Ginkgo,

Just in case you are alluding to my statements, this seems a good time to clarify my position.

It begins with the statement that anything that exists and interacts with any aspect of the physical universe is itself physical, by definition. The term "physical" is not a synonym of "material." Matter is just one component of the physical universe, comprising about 4.7% of the whole. Electromagnetic fields are not material, yet are physical.

Right from the start this is where I stop and start to question.

I think you have an ontological problem here. I am familiar with physicalism and this position categorically states that everything that is knowable about the universe can be expressed in physical terms.

If you want to include electromagnetic fields as physical then I go along with that to a point. However, physical properties are not fluid enough to include non-physical entities.


P.S. Just an after thought.

Why don't you drop the distinction between physical and material and called it all material. It's just a suggestion, but I think it would solve some of the ontological problems

Ginkgo,

Your comments give me a glimpse into why you and I will never be on the same page. I'll explain, and expect you to ignore all my comments.

"Ontological" is too big a word for you to be using. You are certainly unqualified to apply it as a blanket description of other people's problems. "Ontological" is a word that is most often used by ignorant nits who looked it up in a dictionary or learned it in Philosophy 1a at their community college. It is commonly employed by way of obfuscating a conversation. When you acquire a Ph.D in philosophy you will be qualified to use such big words to confuse the children in your philosophy classes.

Until you obtain your Ph.D, abjure obfuscation.

In the process of understanding things we humans make distinctions, like black vs. white, red vs. green, cat vs. mouse. Within these distinctions we can find similarities of kind. For example,

1. Black and white are digital distinctions within shades, enough to use in the construction of drawings, or text on paper, useful for printing.

2. Red and green are colors, each perceived differently by a non-colorblind eye or by a spectrometer. Yet they are simply different frequencies of light, the narrow band of electromagnetic radiation to which the human eye is receptive.

3. Cats and mice have their biological nature and evolutionary histories in common. They have fur, four legs, teeth, eyes, etc. Yet they differ in fundamental ways of behavior. They are predator and prey to one another, and both are prey to bigger and faster critters.

Examining distinctions within similarities comprises much of science. Connections and relationships are as important to science as they are to soap opera plots. Ignore them at your peril. What peril? Ignorance.

For better than a century physics made a distinction between energy and matter, and it made separate conservation laws for each.

1. Energy (the non-material stuff) cannot be created or destroyed.

2. Matter (the material stuff that we incorrectly think we can see and touch) cannot be created or destroyed.

Non-physicists think that they know what matter is. That is because they are so much smarter than physicists, who do not know what matter is.

From experience I'm inclined to state that very few people have the slightest idea what energy is, and are unqualified to use the word in sentences unless they are attending a wu-wu metaphysics class in California.

One of the most profound shifts in man's understanding of physics came with Big Al's famous equation, E=mcc. This equation was arrived at by purely philosophical means, via considerations of measurement standards and mathematical equivalencies. (Oh-- you don't think that mathematics should be allowed in philosophy? If so, stay ignorant.) Al showed that matter and energy were different forms of the same stuff.

Given the universality of energy and its multiferous forms, few would disagree with the proposition that energy is the core stuff. Those who do are typically non-physicists who get their physics knowledge from TV and comic books.

You propose, "Why don't you drop the distinction between physical and material and called it all material. ,,,it would solve some of the ontological problems.

This is the most muddled excuse for thinking that I've ever encountered in an otherwise intelligent individual. The distinction between physical and material is important to physicists and those who have studied enough physics to grasp the fundamentals. It is not my distinction to make or deny. That you would make such a statement suggests to me that you are a very long way from being qualified to argue this subject. That can be remedied. This comment is personal, but it is an invitation to learn, not an insult.

Philosophers who refuse to study physics are no more competent to make judgments about how the universe and its components might work as are physicists who ignore philosophy-- and they are equally non-interesting.

Finally, let's deal with this silly comment: "However, physical properties are not fluid enough to include non-physical entities."

What does this nonsensical statement even mean? Have you studied the physics of fluids (e.g. liquids and gasses) at all? What is your standard for "not fluid enough?" My entire book applies the core concepts of physics to ideas that had previously been considered outside the purview of physics, but no, you'd rather blather on in ignorance than study an alternative. For shame!

I recommend that you abandon this and any other philosophical forums to which you might be doing what you imagine to be "contributing." Use the free time to learn some physics, so that you might have something to actually contribute, after you transcend puberty.

If you want to contribute on your terms, why not describe the nature, properties, origins, and purpose of the non-physical entities that you seem to think actually exist? Then describe exactly how they manage to interact with the rest of the physical universe.

Else, go away and study. You need to graduate from high school, learn something outside the boxes that define your conventional education, and give up philosophy. Your programmed beliefs are already in the way. I know that you will ignore my invitation to learn physics because you are insufficiently motivated. So learn a useful trade, like welding or metalworking. Or learn to make burgers-- whatever works for you. Then learn to dance, get laid a lot, raise some kids. Along the way buy a copy of my book and give it to them when they grow up, if they have useful minds.

That will keep you busy enough so that you will quit bothering me.

[Greylorn Ell]

ok after reading those two posts I am convinced there is some philosophy going on here, I shall stay for now.

Oh, shit. Lucky us. More bullshit to scroll on past, but less philosophy to engage the occasionally thoughtful mind.

[Ginkgo]

Ginkgo,

Your comments give me a glimpse into why you and I will never be on the same page. I'll explain, and expect you to ignore all my comments.

"Ontological" is too big a word for you to be using. You are certainly unqualified to apply it as a blanket description of other people's problems. "Ontological" is a word that is most often used by ignorant nits who looked it up in a dictionary or learned it in Philosophy 1a at their community college. It is commonly employed by way of obfuscating a conversation. When you acquire a Ph.D in philosophy you will be qualified to use such big words to confuse the children in your philosophy classes.

Until you obtain your Ph.D, abjure obfuscation.

In the process of understanding things we humans make distinctions, like black vs. white, red vs. green, cat vs. mouse. Within these distinctions we can find similarities of kind. For example,

1. Black and white are digital distinctions within shades, enough to use in the construction of drawings, or text on paper, useful for printing.

2. Red and green are colors, each perceived differently by a non-colorblind eye or by a spectrometer. Yet they are simply different frequencies of light, the narrow band of electromagnetic radiation to which the human eye is receptive.

3. Cats and mice have their biological nature and evolutionary histories in common. They have fur, four legs, teeth, eyes, etc. Yet they differ in fundamental ways of behavior. They are predator and prey to one another, and both are prey to bigger and faster critters.

Examining distinctions within similarities comprises much of science. Connections and relationships are as important to science as they are to soap opera plots. Ignore them at your peril. What peril? Ignorance.

For better than a century physics made a distinction between energy and matter, and it made separate conservation laws for each.

1. Energy (the non-material stuff) cannot be created or destroyed.

2. Matter (the material stuff that we incorrectly think we can see and touch) cannot be created or destroyed.

Non-physicists think that they know what matter is. That is because they are so much smarter than physicists, who do not know what matter is.

From experience I'm inclined to state that very few people have the slightest idea what energy is, and are unqualified to use the word in sentences unless they are attending a wu-wu metaphysics class in California.

One of the most profound shifts in man's understanding of physics came with Big Al's famous equation, E=mcc. This equation was arrived at by purely philosophical means, via considerations of measurement standards and mathematical equivalencies. (Oh-- you don't think that mathematics should be allowed in philosophy? If so, stay ignorant.) Al showed that matter and energy were different forms of the same stuff.

Given the universality of energy and its multiferous forms, few would disagree with the proposition that energy is the core stuff. Those who do are typically non-physicists who get their physics knowledge from TV and comic books.

You propose, "Why don't you drop the distinction between physical and material and called it all material. ,,,it would solve some of the ontological problems.

This is the most muddled excuse for thinking that I've ever encountered in an otherwise intelligent individual. The distinction between physical and material is important to physicists and those who have studied enough physics to grasp the fundamentals. It is not my distinction to make or deny. That you would make such a statement suggests to me that you are a very long way from being qualified to argue this subject. That can be remedied. This comment is personal, but it is an invitation to learn, not an insult.

Philosophers who refuse to study physics are no more competent to make judgments about how the universe and its components might work as are physicists who ignore philosophy-- and they are equally non-interesting.

Finally, let's deal with this silly comment: "However, physical properties are not fluid enough to include non-physical entities."

What does this nonsensical statement even mean? Have you studied the physics of fluids (e.g. liquids and gasses) at all? What is your standard for "not fluid enough?" My entire book applies the core concepts of physics to ideas that had previously been considered outside the purview of physics, but no, you'd rather blather on in ignorance than study an alternative. For shame!

I recommend that you abandon this and any other philosophical forums to which you might be doing what you imagine to be "contributing." Use the free time to learn some physics, so that you might have something to actually contribute, after you transcend puberty.

If you want to contribute on your terms, why not describe the nature, properties, origins, and purpose of the non-physical entities that you seem to think actually exist? Then describe exactly how they manage to interact with the rest of the physical universe.

Else, go away and study. You need to graduate from high school, learn something outside the boxes that define your conventional education, and give up philosophy. Your programmed beliefs are already in the way. I know that you will ignore my invitation to learn physics because you are insufficiently motivated. So learn a useful trade, like welding or metalworking. Or learn to make burgers-- whatever works for you. Then learn to dance, get laid a lot, raise some kids. Along the way buy a copy of my book and give it to them when they grow up, if they have useful minds.

That will keep you busy enough so that you will quit bothering me.

Hi Greylorn


Well of course. Why would anyone take a character assassination as an insult?

You must have ESP. I got my PhD at UCLA . My doctoral dissertation touched on metaphysics. But then again you are a prophet.

Leaving aside all of my personal failings for the moment. How do you think I am going in this thread so far? You can be honest with me. No need to beat around the bush.

[Blaggard]

ok after reading those two posts I am convinced there is some philosophy going on here, I shall stay for now.

Oh, shit. Lucky us. More bullshit to scroll on past, but less philosophy to engage the occasionally thoughtful mind.

This is not in any way remotely philosophy it is a messiah figure trying to pass off a flawed religion, this is proselytising this has nothing to do with science or philosophy whatsoever so stop pretending you have anything to contribute but religious arm waving.

And this is why you are nothing more than a fraud you don't read or answer people you just scroll past anything inconvenient to your mindless waffle.

I think what you find troubling is that when you actually talk to someone who knows something about science your nonsense is exposed for all to see, so you ignore any questions or points about your woeful lack of ability in biology because that would mean actually admitting you haven't the first clue what you are talking about and its all just a mess of opinion based hyperbole.

It's fortunate I suppose for people like David Koresh that there really is one born every minute.

Your maths is wrong, you haven't modelled anything because you have done bad maths. Is that clear, you are not even remotely in the same place as someone who knew biology would be so it is senseless to attack a field when all your premises are nonsense.

From experience I'm inclined to state that very few people have the slightest idea what energy is, and are unqualified to use the word in sentences unless they are attending a wu-wu metaphysics class in California.

One of the most profound shifts in man's understanding of physics came with Big Al's famous equation, E=mcc. This equation was arrived at by purely philosophical means, via considerations of measurement standards and mathematical equivalencies. (Oh-- you don't think that mathematics should be allowed in philosophy? If so, stay ignorant.) Al showed that matter and energy were different forms of the same stuff.

I know what it is and what is is not beons whatever these mysterious ghosts are you have conjured up to explain your weird religion.

If you want to contribute on your terms, why not describe the nature, properties, origins, and purpose of the non-physical entities that you seem to think actually exist? Then describe exactly how they manage to interact with the rest of the physical universe.

You first since you haven't remotely yet explained why you think exponential models should be applied to species models rather than more sensible iterative maths?

Oh no wait because explaining your ill considered knowledge of biology would mean exposing to everyone that it is based on illogical and pointless vacillation from someone who needs to learn at least to degree level what the hell he is talking about before he attempts to model some fantasy, let alone criticise the current field.

What you don't like is when people who do understand your maths point out why it is nonsense, its much easier to talk to the philosophers whose science and maths is limited.

Scroll away oh erroneous prophet.

[Ginkgo]

Scroll away oh erroneous prophet.

Actually that reminds me Blags. The rules clearly state there can only be one prophet per Web forum. We already have a a long term resident prophet.

[Blaggard]

Scroll away oh erroneous prophet.

Actually that reminds me Blags. The rules clearly state there can only be one prophet per Web forum. We already have a a long term resident prophet.

Sounds like a sensible rule to me. Maybe they can have it out in a battle the first one to talk the other one down wins and the loser has to leave the forum to find more suitable habitat for their word salad.

[Ginkgo]

Scroll away oh erroneous prophet.

Actually that reminds me Blags. The rules clearly state there can only be one prophet per Web forum. We already have a a long term resident prophet.

Sounds like a sensible rule to me. Maybe they can have it out in a battle the first one to talk the other one down wins and the loser has to leave the forum to find more suitable habitat for their word salad.

That would be an interesting contest.

[Blaggard]

What does this nonsensical statement even mean? Have you studied the physics of fluids (e.g. liquids and gasses) at all? What is your standard for "not fluid enough?" My entire book applies the core concepts of physics to ideas that had previously been considered outside the purview of physics, but no, you'd rather blather on in ignorance than study an alternative. For shame!

Yes I have studied at least some fluid dynamics which is kind of irrelevant because he was speaking more figuratively than literally ie you can't stretch the definition of fluid that far.

If you want to talk about Brownian motion or Navier-Stokes equations or Non Newtonian fluids or Bose Einstein condensates, or superfluidity in low temperature physics though by all means go ahead, I am sure you are more qualified to talk about physics at least than biology so you might actually make some in roads.

Else, go away and study. You need to graduate from high school, learn something outside the boxes that define your conventional education, and give up philosophy. Your programmed beliefs are already in the way. I know that you will ignore my invitation to learn physics because you are insufficiently motivated. So learn a useful trade, like welding or metalworking. Or learn to make burgers-- whatever works for you. Then learn to dance, get laid a lot, raise some kids. Along the way buy a copy of my book and give it to them when they grow up, if they have useful minds.

Education and advice I am sure you will take as an insult when aimed in your direction but none the less you need to go back to school, learn some basic chemistry and biology, at least enough to discuss DNA and or heredity and then return when you have more than a high school students knowledge of the subject. Because your models are verkackt to use some rather old Anglo Saxon.

[uwot]

"Ontological" is too big a word for you to be using. You are certainly unqualified to apply it as a blanket description of other people's problems. "Ontological" is a word that is most often used by ignorant nits who looked it up in a dictionary or learned it in Philosophy 1a at their community college. It is commonly employed by way of obfuscating a conversation. When you acquire a Ph.D in philosophy you will be qualified to use such big words to confuse the children in your philosophy classes.

Well I guess I'm the junior partner here, as I can only speak at the level of MSc. But what I have learnt so far leads me to believe that what you are proposing is a dualist theory, Greylorn. Correct me if I am wrong, but your theory seems to imply that there is some stuff, a 'beon' field, that has been manipulated by 'aliens' to produce the observable universe. It may be that the aliens are in fact aspects or parts of the beon field, it's not clear from anything I have read so far. In the former case you are making a claim similar to Plato, in that there is some 'substance' if that is not too philosophical a word, that a demiurge, or demiurges has shaped. The other alternative is some version of pantheistic monism.
The problem with dualism is always how do the two things interact? If there is no causal mechanism, the only alternative is magic. The trouble with pantheism is that, as far as we can tell, the vast bulk of the universe does not seem to be conscious in the way that things with brains appear to be. You apparently believe there is some mechanism in the brain that works as an antenna. I would suggest that if you can identify that structure you would really be on to something. I can start you off: Descartes thought it was the pineal gland; it isn't.

From experience I'm inclined to state that very few people have the slightest idea what energy is, and are unqualified to use the word in sentences unless they are attending a wu-wu metaphysics class in California.

As I understand it, energy is simply the amount of damage something will do. In essence hv is the kick an electron gets, ½mv² is the dent an apple will make if it drops and mc² is how big a city a lump of uranium will flatten. It has no ontological status beyond it's effects, or do you believe there is something that is energy that you can collect in buckets or some other container?

One of the most profound shifts in man's understanding of physics came with Big Al's famous equation, E=mcc. This equation was arrived at by purely philosophical means, via considerations of measurement standards and mathematical equivalencies. (Oh-- you don't think that mathematics should be allowed in philosophy? If so, stay ignorant.)

Do all the maths you like, if it's about something I can't see, I'm not really interested. To be sure, you need to be fluent in maths to invent a story in that language, but just as with natural languages, the fact that the story is coherent, doesn't make it true. Similarly, the fact that we don't yet have the maths to account for something, doesn't mean that something isn't real. But if it is to be of any use, you need the means to quantify it in order to manipulate it with any success.

Al showed that matter and energy were different forms of the same stuff.

Right. So is beon theory analogous to some quantum field theory, in that there is some stuff that can have material properties and energetic properties? If so, I think that may well be true. I have said that, in my opinion, the most likely cause of the phenomena that give the impression of stuff, is some stuff that is responsible for the phenomena. I have also said that it is logically possible that matter is mind, as Berkeley, and possibly you, suggested.

Given the universality of energy and its multiferous forms, few would disagree with the proposition that energy is the core stuff. Those who do are typically non-physicists who get their physics knowledge from TV and comic books.

Fine. So in what sense is energy 'stuff'?

Philosophers who refuse to study physics are no more competent to make judgments about how the universe and its components might work as are physicists who ignore philosophy-- and they are equally non-interesting.

Philosophers who refuse to accept the observations made by physicists (peer reviewed and not doubted except by cranks) are idiots. The world behaves the way it does and it is that behaviour that needs explaining. You have done this by creating a story about some sort of 'consciousness' that 'beings' manipulate and you have shored it up with some sums. All very impressive, but a good story and some coherent maths does not make it true. Ginkgo and Blaggard have made points about the efficacy of maths and the fact that even physicists use metaphysical models to visualise what they do. All true, but my background is history and philosophy of science, and the lesson of history is very neatly summed up by Feynman: "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong." If, as in beon theory, there isn't an experiment to do, it isn't even wrong, to paraphrase Pauli.

[Blaggard]

Right. So is beon theory analogous to some quantum field theory, in that there is some stuff that can have material properties and energetic properties? If so, I think that may well be true. I have said that, in my opinion, the most likely cause of the phenomena that give the impression of stuff, is some stuff that is responsible for the phenomena. I have also said that it is logically possible that matter is mind, as Berkeley, and possibly you, suggested.

Particle/wave duality is hardly contentious science, at the small scale particles seem to be have in a different way than large clumps of matter do like planets.

What you can't argue with is that such a quantum system may in fact be reality, and our evolution has steered us in ways where seeing reality is detrimental to species diversification, mutation or natural selection. Fact is though DNA uses quantum mechanics principles to locate encoding strands for replication more efficiently. In other words it doesn't go looking for the strands in a classical way, it seems to know before it starts where the strand it needs to encode is, which is just an example of the fairly strange world of the atomic scale there's a NASA paper on it somewhere in some biology journal I am sure I can fish it out or at least find some trace of it if needs be. It tentatively suggests there may be some entanglement properties at the very small scale of molecule building.

Whether you want to say the mind is quantum like Penrose or Hammeroff did you do need to satisfy science that such processes can and do take place at the scale of microtubuoles and if such entanglement and information passing effects could exist or be maintained at a temperature of 37 degrees centigrade, that would be intrinsically able to remain coherent, which is something they have failed to reproduce, hence their papers are generally considered fringe and even crackpot because they cannot be experimentally verified by the nature of the biological system itself, no to mention that there is no need for non electrical information transfer or any seemingly rational reason to believe esp or whatever is some quantum telepathy so we don't which presumably annoys the woo woo crowd, in the end though any hypothesis needs to be testable, if not it is ignored.

[uwot]

Particle/wave duality is hardly contentious science, at the small scale particles seem to be have in a different way than large clumps of matter do like planets.

I'm not suggesting that the observed behaviour of small scale particles is contentious. As well as the bit you quoted, I said this: "Philosophers who refuse to accept the observations made by physicists (peer reviewed and not doubted except by cranks) are idiots. The world behaves the way it does and it is that behaviour that needs explaining." I'm sure that most people reading this will be familiar with wave/particle duality, but what is of interest to philosophy is what that says about ontology: waves/particles of what? Not that it matters, but either there is some substance that to which these qualities inhere, basically the materialist approach, or there are simply the phenomena which appear for some reason we cannot discern. Sometimes physics advances by making ontological guesses, as for instance 4D spacetime, but it doesn't follow that any of the ontologies actually describe reality as it is, rather than being useful tools for describing how it behaves. As I keep pointing out, it doesn't make any difference to the phenomena what anyone thinks the cause is, unless it leads to some experiment that can demonstrate something is consistent with the claims. If we are thereby able to manipulate our environment better, well and good.

What you can't argue with is that such a quantum system may in fact be reality,

I'm not sure if you are suggesting that I would argue such a point, but in case you are still in any doubt, I wouldn't.

and our evolution has steered us in ways where seeing reality is detrimental to species diversification, mutation or natural selection.

Again; who knows? But I don't think evolution particularly cares which way it has steered us, and I'm not sure about how 'seeing' wave/particle duality would improve anyone's chances of attracting a mate. I don't know if there is any evidence to suggest that successful physicists are particularly successful breeders.

Fact is though DNA uses quantum mechanics principles to locate encoding strands for replication more efficiently. In other words it doesn't go looking for the strands in a classical way, it seems to know before it starts where the strand it needs to encode is, which is just an example of the fairly strange world of the atomic scale there's a NASA paper on it somewhere in some biology journal I am sure I can fish it out or at least find some trace of it if needs be. It tentatively suggests there may be some entanglement properties at the very small scale of molecule building.

I think you must be talking to someone else, but the paper sounds very interesting and I wouldn't mind giving it a gander if you can dig it out.

[Blaggard]

Well talking to you and by implication El vicariously but you have to since he is not at home to me.

Seeing particle wave duality was a detriment, I though I'd made that clear, but meh I am not the most linguistically capable person, being dyslexic I am sure you can see why.

My spellings poor, my comprehension not great, and I do waffle, I'm not gay, but hey we can't all be perfect.


It's not easy to track down journal papers in a format where any old pleb can read them. But I'll do my best.

As I understand it, energy is simply the amount of damage something will do. In essence hv is the kick an electron gets, ½mv² is the dent an apple will make if it drops and mc² is how big a city a lump of uranium will flatten. It has no ontological status beyond it's effects, or do you believe there is something that is energy that you can collect in buckets or some other container?

No energy is an amount of force available to do work, damage is by the by although of course given enough energy you can damage, as the physics of the 20th century proved, as did the dropping of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ironically a direct result of quantum mechanics and Einstei'ns general relativity where E=mc^2 knowledge is a dangerous weapon when wielded by politicians. :S

What is probably worrying is that fission reactions in nuclear weapons are roughly 1% efficient, heaven help us if they ever get hold of enough matter to make an antimatter bomb, they are in theory almost 100% efficient. So you'd only need a few hundred thousand molecules of anti hydrogen to destroy most of the solar system. :S

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdhwTXwhA4c

I picture it something like that. Watch it it will at least probably make you chuckle, especially as German scientists did indeed revolutionise American theory, it was the rocket technology of certain scientists that put a man on the moon too, although of course that never happened and was staged in a studio in Los Angeles.

"I am become death the destroyer of worlds."

Oppenheimer and the Bhagavad Gita, referring to an avatar of Vishnu called Krishna or juggernaut or Jesus if you like their pretty much all the same thing. I find it helps to know a good deal about religion, although I am not sure most people would share my interest, in science, although since there are more religious Scientists in the world than atheist Scientists I suppose that is a facile contention.

It's like giving a gorilla a shot gun and hoping it wont learn how to pull the trigger before the benefits of science have provided something, like the sword of Damocles knowledge is double edged... ,

[Svetoslav]

Hi all,

I am new to this forum and as you can see from my name I am not a native english speaker- so please excuse me for any mistakes that I make.

To the question: does God exist? – my answer – of course It does.

I say it, because for me it is more challenging to know what God is (which seems challenging for God too). I think there is a way for science to logically prove the existence of God, and when there is a theory of everything it should take in account not only the physics but also questions like why there is competition, curiosity and ultimately what is God. To this topic I have recently launched a blog called Because Everything is Love. It sounds absurd, but if you could have the patience to read it you will see what I mean. The blog is quite new so it does not appear on the first (or maybe any) page of the search engines. The address is becauseeverythingislove.blogspot.com
In it I actually go the other way – I start with God and end with unified theory that can be used to explain not only how the world works, but also why the world works as it does…. or at least I very much like to hope it be such a theory. It also may be a total nonsense as well
So I’ll be happy to read your comments, jokes etc.

[Blaggard]

I suppose I should explain my credentials, I have a degree in biology I am getting another one in physics and will probably get a PhD eventually in physics, although my maths skills are not awesome so it will probably be in experimental physics or a related field. I do not have a degree in philosophy, but friends of mine have turned me on to the subject. And although I am unusual amongst Scientists who think philosophy is a a card game played by fools where those who can bluff best win, I think they are wrong.

That said I am not at home to people who use sloppy science, any assumption based on it does need to be based on some sort of science, although I will give you not some sort of exact science, just some sort.

Oh and before you comment I am no more right than anyone else, but I do like being in the right ball park at least. I don't think it is too much to ask that those who critique subjects are in the same ball park, nay?