Quote:
Originally Posted by REASON
James,
First of all, electric charge is a name given to an effect, not a cause as you have so aptly noted. So to substitute the the term "God" in this instance would be improper based on your own argument. I'm not aware that there is a dogmatic scientific name applied to the cause of electric charge in subatomic particles. But suggesting that using the term "God" is as acceptable as any term, where there is no current explanation, is presumptuous in my estimation.
|
Electric charge is a name given to describe a property of some particles of matter. If the particle is isolated and not changing its velocity, then, there are no effects. The property of electric charge is defined as existing even in the absence of effects. It is the property that will cause effects, the effects being changes of velocity, should the particle have its own velocity changed. Electric charge is a 'given' fundamental cause of electromagnetic effects. There is no need to refer to God as the cause of electric charge. The point I am making is that electric charge is an assumed property. So long as it remains recognized as a fundamental property, it plays the role of an artificial, theoretical, stopping point. The problem, as I see it, is not only with electric charge. The problem is pervasive throughout theoretical physics. It starts at the beginning of theory.
Quote:
|
What's interesting to me about your position is that it seems to become impossible to ever scientifically define a base cause for anything. As soon as someone attempts to so so, it is immediately classified as dogmatic or restrictive from your point of view and is dismissible. At least it appears that way to me. I conceed that I may either be reading too much or not enough into your statements.
|
It is true that I am saying no one knows what is cause. This lack of knowledge is not the immediate problem we face. We can go a very long way without ever knowing what is cause. The immediate problem is that cause has been artificially divided up into theoretical fundamental forces. In other words, disunity is adopted as the norm in fundamental physics theory. We do not know that this is really the case. It may be possible that theoretical physics can be developed with unity of cause right from the beginning of the fundamentals.
Quote:
|
I think one of the important points that has been made relative to the idea of naming undefined aspects of nature is that using the term "God" carries with it a whole lot of historical baggage. While you may have a clear understanding of what you mean when you apply the word "God" to something, most people are going to think you are referring to something completely different that is more reminiscent of their dogmatic religious programming. Something you probably aren't intending. This only leads to a breakdown in communication. So if you feel it is inconsequential what terminology is used to convey undefined causation, why should anyone choose the term "God" with all of it's confusing implications?
|
I think you are correct. I do not have a compelling need to use the name God. However, theoretical physics offers us no way to move from mechancial type action to defining fundamentals for the properties of life and intelligence. So, I see the mechanical type facade of theoretical physics as an obstacle that is preventing us from moving forward and discovering the true natural properties of the universe.
Quote:
No matter how far you go with defining root cause, stopping at God suggests an unwillingness seek further refinement in understanding. So from the stand point of science, it is simply impossible to arrive at the conclusion of God. This isn't being closed-minded, it's the nature of the method.
God can only exist as a concept. Is that not acceptable?
|
Your point is a good one. However, I am arguing that stopping at separate fundamental causes also blocks the oportunity for further refinement. In any case, somewhere in the definition of fundamental properties of the universe, the word intelligence should be included. Something causes it. If there is a single cause, then that cause will have the potential to produce all the results that we observe in the universe. I think it should not be considered unscientific to prefer the investigation of a fundamental potential for all properties over the limited investigation of patterns in changes of velocity.
James
