4 ms·

Ofcourse religion is misused for taking power and therefore a lot of people don't like to think about it. But I find it always a little strange that a God theor

by tintin 15y ago

Ofcourse religion is misused for taking power and therefore a lot of people don't like to think about it. But I find it always a little strange that a God theory is more 'strange' than a single electron theory. In the end it seems we still know nothing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron but we know how to take advantage of them (welding, cathode ray tubes, electron microscopes, radiation therapy, lasers and particle accelerators).

rytis 15y ago
I see you're getting downvotes too :) Somehow (some) people are quite touchy about the subject... Rant aside, funny how God omnipresence ideas fit nicely into this 'single electron' theory. After all may be this is what proves the existence (or absence) of God as we know him... And you're quite right. We got down to the smallest particles. We can observe them. But this is where it stops. I sincerely hope this is temporary halt and there will be progress made some time soon. Ah yes, we still in search for Higgs, aren't we? ;)
tlholaday 15y ago
When single electron theory includes proposition that the single electron was the author or guarantor of a particular holy book, then it will be as strange as God theory.
- omarchowdhury 15y ago
  Which holy book did God say He wrote Himself?
  - mortenjorck 15y ago
    Interesting philosophical distinction I've learned from some party discussions between Muslims and Christians: In Islam, the Koran is held to be a revealed text: Muslims believe the text's writers wrote verbatim the words proceeding from Allah. In Christianity, the Bible is held to be an inspired text: Christians believe authorship rests with the text's writers, with a sort of guidance from God. What's fascinating here is the degree to which even closely-related sects may disagree on the nature of this guidance: some protestant groups believe in an infallible inspiration, while others believe even the Bible can suffer from bad CRCs.
krig 15y ago
God omnipresence fits in the 'single electron' theory only if God is an electron, an electron being a subatomic particle with a negative charge. I suppose that is fine if that's what you mean by God, but none of the usual connotations or implications of God-hood would apply. The God-electron would have omnipresence, but no omnipotence or indeed any other of the qualities usually ascribed to gods (other than the obvious, the negative energy those ideas tend to bring with them).
- rytis 15y ago
  yeah, exactly, the 'usual connotations or implications of God-hood'. all these 'usual connotations' is what people came up with. omnipotence in this perspective is meaningless - if everything is you, why would you need to have any 'power' over yourself? you is you and you are what you need to be :) and if you're after thunderbolts and other gimmicky things, then sorry, single electron theory doesn't cater for that IMHO...
  - 7rurl 15y ago
    There are more things in the universe than electrons and positrons, so if God was THE electron, he still wouldn't be everything.
- tintin 15y ago
  Well I did not agree with the 'God being a single electron'. I just observed that a theory like the single electron is nominated for being 'interesting' while other theories are being nominated as 'not possible'. Edit: The egg theory is even on top of this thread...
  - krig 15y ago
    I didn't mean to dismiss your question, it's a reasonable one to ask. The reason for considering this theory interesting is because it is at least nominally a scientific theory, whereas a God theory is not a scientific theory and thus not interesting to science. Why is a God theory not a scientific theory? Let me attempt to explain.. A scientific theory starts with experimental observation (in this case, the observation that all electrons have the same mass and charge) and attempts to explain that observation. This explanation should be 1) testable, and 2) predictive. That is, it should be possible to disprove the theory through further experiments, and the theory should lead to further conclusions about how the world works that would then be provable through experimentation as well. Now, it is doubtful that the one-electron theory is actually testable, which moves it from the realm of serious theories to merely interesting hypotheticals. This is similar to the idea of everything in the world being part of a computer simulation, for example. Now, God theories in general have multiple issues that make them unscientific. For example, if you claim that God is an entity that is 'beyond time', you need to define in scientific terms what it means to be beyond time. Another issue is that you would need to come up with some experiment that would prove that God does not exist. Even if you were to formulate a definition of God that would satisfy these requirements, it is doubtful that many believers would agree with that definition. Thus, 'God theory' in general doesn't describe a scientific theory at all, and so it is fundamentally not related to science. edit: I should also say that such a God theory is usually not interesting for another reason: Since it doesn't describe the god of any major religion, no one is really very interested in seeing it disproven. It's easy to invent a cosmic entity and come up with an experiment that proves that it doesn't exist, but what's the point?

by tintin 15y ago

rytis 15y ago

I see you're getting downvotes too :) Somehow (some) people are quite touchy about the subject... Rant aside, funny how God omnipresence ideas fit nicely into this 'single electron' theory. After all may be this is what proves the existence (or absence) of God as we know him... And you're quite right. We got down to the smallest particles. We can observe them. But this is where it stops. I sincerely hope this is temporary halt and there will be progress made some time soon. Ah yes, we still in search for Higgs, aren't we? ;)

tlholaday 15y ago

When single electron theory includes proposition that the single electron was the author or guarantor of a particular holy book, then it will be as strange as God theory.

omarchowdhury 15y ago
Which holy book did God say He wrote Himself?
- mortenjorck 15y ago
  Interesting philosophical distinction I've learned from some party discussions between Muslims and Christians: In Islam, the Koran is held to be a revealed text: Muslims believe the text's writers wrote verbatim the words proceeding from Allah. In Christianity, the Bible is held to be an inspired text: Christians believe authorship rests with the text's writers, with a sort of guidance from God. What's fascinating here is the degree to which even closely-related sects may disagree on the nature of this guidance: some protestant groups believe in an infallible inspiration, while others believe even the Bible can suffer from bad CRCs.

krig 15y ago

God omnipresence fits in the 'single electron' theory only if God is an electron, an electron being a subatomic particle with a negative charge. I suppose that is fine if that's what you mean by God, but none of the usual connotations or implications of God-hood would apply. The God-electron would have omnipresence, but no omnipotence or indeed any other of the qualities usually ascribed to gods (other than the obvious, the negative energy those ideas tend to bring with them).

rytis 15y ago
yeah, exactly, the 'usual connotations or implications of God-hood'. all these 'usual connotations' is what people came up with. omnipotence in this perspective is meaningless - if everything is you, why would you need to have any 'power' over yourself? you is you and you are what you need to be :) and if you're after thunderbolts and other gimmicky things, then sorry, single electron theory doesn't cater for that IMHO...
- 7rurl 15y ago
  There are more things in the universe than electrons and positrons, so if God was THE electron, he still wouldn't be everything.
tintin 15y ago
Well I did not agree with the 'God being a single electron'. I just observed that a theory like the single electron is nominated for being 'interesting' while other theories are being nominated as 'not possible'. Edit: The egg theory is even on top of this thread...
- krig 15y ago
  I didn't mean to dismiss your question, it's a reasonable one to ask. The reason for considering this theory interesting is because it is at least nominally a scientific theory, whereas a God theory is not a scientific theory and thus not interesting to science. Why is a God theory not a scientific theory? Let me attempt to explain.. A scientific theory starts with experimental observation (in this case, the observation that all electrons have the same mass and charge) and attempts to explain that observation. This explanation should be 1) testable, and 2) predictive. That is, it should be possible to disprove the theory through further experiments, and the theory should lead to further conclusions about how the world works that would then be provable through experimentation as well. Now, it is doubtful that the one-electron theory is actually testable, which moves it from the realm of serious theories to merely interesting hypotheticals. This is similar to the idea of everything in the world being part of a computer simulation, for example. Now, God theories in general have multiple issues that make them unscientific. For example, if you claim that God is an entity that is 'beyond time', you need to define in scientific terms what it means to be beyond time. Another issue is that you would need to come up with some experiment that would prove that God does not exist. Even if you were to formulate a definition of God that would satisfy these requirements, it is doubtful that many believers would agree with that definition. Thus, 'God theory' in general doesn't describe a scientific theory at all, and so it is fundamentally not related to science. edit: I should also say that such a God theory is usually not interesting for another reason: Since it doesn't describe the god of any major religion, no one is really very interested in seeing it disproven. It's easy to invent a cosmic entity and come up with an experiment that proves that it doesn't exist, but what's the point?