In the scientific field of physics, and thus in every other field as well, since everything in the universe is simply the result of interacting particles, on many different scales, anything which can be measured exists, and that which cannot be does not. While it seems on the surface prohibitively restrictive, it is not. Any particle, so long as it interacts with others, can be measured, in one way or another with a certain finess. Take an analogy of billiard balls. One can sense a ball if it hits one's arm, even if one does not see it.

Additionally, if one knows the direction and speed of a ball from its origin, data gathered from consulting with another fellow experimenter who manipulates the ball, one can detect the existence of a different ball. The two balls would collide and the original would be deflected from expected parameters, hitting another point on the person's arm. Knowing the initial parameters of the original ball, one can then deduce the existence and attributes of the second, even though one may not be able to directly measure it. If more particles are in the system, let us say 10 billiard balls, then more detectors, more information would be needed, but the result would be the identification of the balls, directly or indirectly observed. This is a matter of sensitivity, and, as in this analogy, in reality it is the same. If a particle in any way affects those around it than its effects can be measured, though not nesseserily attributed to the particle itself, and thus the particle can be said to exist, absolutely. If there is said to be a particle which does not interact with any others, ever, at any time, therefore, it can be said that this particle does not exist, is unreal or is imaginary.

I would, therefore, make the conclusion that any action which affects the earth, or humanity or any particle is the result of an interaction of similarly existing particles which can be influenced by humanity once a certain mechanical prowess is reached. This conclusion, I would say, opposes the notions of "supernatural" anomalies beyond human understanding. Such things imply that humanity can never understand them, that humanity is always at the mercy of them and that humanly cannot possibly counter them since they are supernatural. However, if they exact observable effects on humanity or its surroundings, then they must also be real and thus subject to the same laws which govern humanity and are therefore within the real which can be manipulated by mankind, even if that requires greater technological prowess.


To take this one step further, I would say that, this conclusion being valid, god is also, if he exists, a subject of natural laws, as are we humans. And that his actions are too determined by such laws, as are those of humans, and even if god's understanding of those laws is greater than the understanding of us humans, it is nevertheless bounded to the same natural laws and thus not out of our reach. This would mean that god, if he exists, is not in the traditional sense a perfect entity, something which cannot exist in reality since any entity is inevitably affected by, at least, the laws of thermodynamics and thus imperfect, but a more advanced being, if he exists at all, who apparently created the universe solely for the benefit of humanity. This being unlikely, since the existence of any super being would imply that other entities and civilizations exist in the universe, I would sooner conclude that it is a creation of human societies rather than reality. And since science is doing a good job explaining universal phenomenon, these esoteric conclusions of divine intervention are futile.

Well, this has been the aforementioned scientific philosophising. Comments?

i agree.

i would also like to add something from a biological perspective. As you said, God must be subject to the same natural laws as we are. Well if this is true then he must be a living thing, since in nature a being must be alive in order to be sentient.

A living thing is defined as something that is capable of growth, reproduction, and metabolism. We also know that all living things must die eventually. These rules apply to every living thing.

But according to believers of God, God never dies. There is also no notion in any holy book that he grows or has grown. In fact most believers claim that he either appeared somehow or was always there. Since he breaks these rules for all living things, he cannot be a living thing. Yet he must be living to be sentient. (Unless he's some sort of advanced robot or computer lol.) Therefore the existence of God is a paradox. This demonstrates that God is nothing but fantasy.

zomg double post

Measured in what way? Weight?

Um, now you're throwing in particles and using them as billiard balls. Can't do that.

I'm a bit confused if you're using particles as billiard balls, or the particles of billiard balls.

Not true.

Rest snipped out as it's using that as a valid premise.

Neal C.

Measured in any way. That is their influence on other particles, if measured, means that the particles have been measured, that is they exist and affect others.
I can really, really do that. I explained using an Analogy, that is a hypothetical situation utilizing ideas which can be said to be more "concrete" than those discussed in order to relate to the reader the idea-proper.

Billiard balls being analogous to particles.
Quite true. If I may use another analogy, it is like saying that a ghost exists even though that ghost can never, ever interact with any part or particle of our universe. For all intents and purposes, that ghost does not exist, since he can never, ever be located, through his interactions with our universe, since he does not interact with it in any way. From the point of view of physics, and thus all science, he does not exist.

Alrighty.

There is a problem in comparing billiard balls and particles in an analogy.

Billiard balls and particles do not follow the same laws.

They differ on their predictable states. The universe on the microscale is largely unpredictable, and largely predictable on the macroscale. Hence, particles, and billiard balls.

Well we could never infer such a particle that doesn't interact.

Proving something that is invisible acts invisible doesn't prove anything else. It doesn't prove the existence of ghosts.

Neal C.

Quoting principles of Quantum Theory does not invalidate my analogy. For the second time, it was an analogy intending to relate the measuring of particles in a manner which is more accesible. I gave an example of discovering the existance of a billiard ball which cannot be directly seen, but must be observed via its interactions with another known billiard ball. I never said, nor was it ever implied, that particles behave as these balls, nor that I was in fact measuring particles following the same manner. It was an analogy, nothing more, though it seems still unclear. It can always be said that such particles and ghosts exist. My point is that if such fictitious constructs exist, and they in no way interact with our universe, then for all intents and purposes they are irrelevant. It was this reasoning which I attempted to use to say that God, if he exists in the sense that he may interact with humanity, must be subject to the same laws which affect humanity.

That is true for as long as you do not use particles and billiard balls interchangeably.

If your analogy starts off with billiard balls it has to end with billiard balls. If your analogy starts off with particles it has to end with particles.

But your analogy did not do that. Particular this line - "If more particles are in the system, let us say 10 billiard balls, [...]."

So this is not about billiard balls, then?

So this analogy is about billiard balls now!

Well now I'm unclear what your analogy is.

I don't know what it means for a physical visible object to be irrelevant.

Maybe somewhere in your argument you hide the fact that ghosts and particles are invisible.

I shall attempt to explain further. Let us create a theoretical universe. In this universe, there are only 4 kinds of basic physical particles. An observer in this universe would consist of a number of these 4 particles in some collection and ratio. If this observer were to say that there exists a 5th type of fundamental particle, which in no way interacts with the other 4 at any time, and thus never interacts with the observer's universe, then the observer's statement can be called fictitious. That is since this particle, in the observer's theory, never interacts with the universe it can never affect any aspect of it. Therefore, from the point of view of the universe which the observer inhabits, this particle is fictitious and irrelevant.

This is the same premise I utilized. To say that anything which interacts with our universe exists and is therefore under the influence of every natural law. And that which does not interact in any fashion can be considered fictitious and irrelevant.

If this 5th particle is non-existant, it doesn't exist.

If this 5th particle cannot be at the same point and time of another particle, it takes up space, and exists.

If you want to prove that things do not exist do not exist, fine, more circular logic. But I don't see how it proves God could exist. Maybe you can further lecture on that.

It is a means to say that god does not exist. Since he is claimed to be a transcendent entity unaffected by our universal laws, I attempted to say that he must be affected by our laws in order to be able to affect us, through his supposed miracles etc. Therefore, relegating him from a perfect, transcendent entity to a normal, universal entity subject to laws of nature. Thus I say that there is no god, and human origins are far better explained by natural laws than by divine intervention.

You're fishing in uncharted waters.

So we can have an arguments sake, if some higher being does exist, and the universal laws in his "realm" or "universe" differ from ours, I see one of two things.

For starters, let’s say that god created our universe and our universal laws, but is not affected by our universal laws in away way. Since this god was the one that generated these laws into existence, I see no reason why he cannot control our laws and still be unaffected by them at the same time, keeping in mind he was the being that created these universal laws.

If I were to create a computer game similar to The Sims and hatch different universal laws to ours, I can still control the people in the game without being affected by their laws. I can build a game code that forces them to crawl daily, yet I can still walk and run. I can force their planets gravitational force to be several G forces constantly, yet I still remain at 1 G force.

Other than that, the term 'omnipotence' comes to mind.