• How did living organisms come to be?
    Spectral measurements indicate that amino acids and sugars indeed form in interstellar dust. They are all over the place, literally. I am by no means an expert, but that might suggest that simple organics didn't have to be seeded: if they form so readily everywhere, couldn't they have formed here on Earth?SophistiCat

    Good point, and maybe you are right. It might not be a meteorite that brought necessary things on Earth but it was on Earth in the first place. I am not an expert in astronomy neither so I don't know.
  • How did living organisms come to be?

    Scientists do attempt addressing that problem. They just haven't got a universally acceptable solution or alternative. So you are right, general relativity is, by no means, a complete, fully accurate description of physics.

    Unlike special relativity, where theories like QFT have unified quantum mechanics and special relativity, general relativity lacks any good alternative or generalizing theories. In fact, even one of the most successful theories like Quantum Field Theory is still inadequate to completely explain several experimental data such as particle physics. This is due to the fundamental nature of QFT. So then, from the practical point of view, what are you insisting we do? Forget about scientific theories and be "philosophical", which in my opinion is even worse in this particular case? Or we just stop talking about it and be agnostic? Because one thing that would really bug me is that you mentioned in a thread "Does a 'God' exist", specifically this post, where you said:
    According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything.Metaphysician Undercover
    I thought you were against extreme skepticism. You seem to be unable to accept general relativity because of certain area that it cannot account for despite the good description (or approximation) of reality that general relativity provides (and is actually used in engineering area, and it works well). This is likely the same for any other theory. Does that mean you disagree with every single theories out there?

    So when something which is clearly contradictory in terms of description, (such as the expansion of space inside an object being different from the expansion of space outside an object), can only be accounted for with mathematics, I consider such an application of mathematics to be deception, used to hide a contradiction.Metaphysician Undercover
    This tells me that
    I have a reasonable scientific background and you might be surprised at how well I understand this stuffMetaphysician Undercover
    is a lie.
  • How did living organisms come to be?
    I must say, nice job with a brief summary. But I don't think any of the people here really understand the mathematics and science behind this and no matter how many times you try to convince those that just emotionally reject the idea, they are not going to change their mind.
    I don't completely understand it either because I am not an astronomer but a physical chemist.

    Science is extremely sophisticated today because they are built upon very large, multi-discipline, intuitively hard to understand branches of science. All of these branches intertwine in so many different ways. It impossible for one to be able to understand all of this in a lifetime. General public usually never get the chance of understanding how much of the correct effort numerous scientists have put to get this far. And if they don't understand and wants to reject it, they suddenly think they are smarter than these large group of scientists, as seen numerous times on this forum. A very sad reality.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    Lots and lots of people claim so and present what they consider to be evidence. But whether what they consider to be evidence is, indeed, evidence is a matter for inquiry -- it is not a given. Which is why part of the problem is an examination of what is evidence and what is not.

    (Note that it is possible, and even very common, for evidence to be ambiguous, and also for it to support contradictory theories).
    You are right.

    But for me, most of the "evidence" that they claim to be as one is expedient, otherwise downright wrong. One example is "probability". Probability is probably one of the common defense that I see people use to justify intelligent design (usually by a god) because the chance of the Earth happening is extremely slim. This is such a bad argument because 1) they seem not to understand what "probability" (precisely, what unit) they are talking about, and 2) they are lacking basic knowledge in statistics and is making a hilariously wrong interpretation of probability.
    I am surprised especially when one of those person was studying statistics. So like you said, one can use it to support contradictory theories. Honestly, to me, what they do is more like a double standard.

    That is of course, one example. I am definitely not going to go through tons of other examples because I don't have the willpower and time to do so.

    Nope, the "concept of God" certainly developed later than the experience of gods -- and any experience of gods is (in the viewpoint of the subject) "observation of the actual object".Mariner
    This is begging the question. Your conclusion essentially implies that god(s) were actually experienced by people, which requires as a premise that god(s) actually do exist. This is circular reasoning.
  • Does a 'God' exist?

    An interpretation is an explanation or description of the meaning of something. How can that be the thing itself. To say what something means, is not the thing itself. An interpretation may be judged as an understanding or it may be judged as a misunderstanding, but this is irrelevant to the fact that an interpretation cannot be the thing itself which is being interpreted.Metaphysician Undercover
    I agree that my wording was not good. What I meant was the resulting object (X') derived from the interpretation of the evidence produced by supposedly existent actual object (X).
    Maybe I should've said "interpreted God" or something.

    Let's say that there is an existent thing referred to as X. If an interpretation of this thing contains contradictions, that does not mean that the thing does not exist, it means that there is a faulty interpretation, a misunderstanding. It is nonsense to assert that the faulty interpretation indicates that the thing does not exist. If I say that my shirt is blue, when it is really green, because I am colour blind, this does not mean that my shirt doesn't exist.Metaphysician Undercover
    This is pretty much rephrasing what I've said. I don't understand what you disagree.

    I don't understand your point. All we have to go on, with respect to any existing things, is our interpretations of those things. According to your claim then, we cannot prove the existence of anything, and this is probably true, we take the existence of things for granted. But that's just extreme skepticism, to claim that we can't prove the existence of anything.Metaphysician Undercover
    Who said we can't prove the existence of anything?

    For example, when we see Indica rice, we know that it is Indica rice. This is because we have defined Indica rice. People mistaking Indica rice as Japonica rice is because such people have no clue of the definition, and this is not the same as misinterpretation.

    This is different from god(s). First of all, no one actually met a god (some claims so but without evidence). We don't even know if it exists. The concept came before observation of the actual object (unlike Indica rice). For this reason, the definition of god comes from the complete opposite approach than how we defined Indica rice. The definition of god is not definite at all because we have plenty of religion out there.
  • How did living organisms come to be?
    Scientifically, I agree with molecular-panspermia (Extraterrestrial organic molecules).

    Indeed, statistically it is plausible that organic molecules can be formed from dusts (and later meteorites and comets) in space. These molecules may have become precursors for life after crashing on planets. Amino acids was also detected in one of the comets, if my memory serves me right.

    It is important to note that amino acid in nature is L type (and not D). I think MChD (Magneto-Chiral Dichroism) can provide an answer for that.

    *of course this is subject to change in light of new evidence.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    I agree with this also. The question does seem to be about X itself instead of our interpretation of it.GreyScorpio

    Which is impossible because then you are implying that the premise X' = X. Any interpretation arising from God is X' in any religion and disproving this does not disprove X at all. Then either the OP question itself needs to be revised so that we can actually talk about X like you intended, or that we just talk about how X' is wrong.

    This is complete nonsense. First, in number 2 you allow that an interpretation could be the thing itself, which is impossible. Then in number 3 you state that the interpretation, X', must be apprehensible with the senses, but this is nonsensical. How would you apprehend with the senses an interpretation?Metaphysician Undercover

    Let's make this clear.

    First, an interpretation can be, by accident or not, the thing itself. If you deny this, then every single thing that every single person on this forum says, are misunderstanding. I hope that is not true.

    If a god really do exist, then he can be deistic, materialistic, or omnipotent, and etc. We don't know that. Whatever it is, we just name it X. However, OP provides a type of God in certain religion (most likely Abrahamic God). We name this type of interpretation of God as X'. Then we comprehend the properties of X' and can draw out conclusion that there are flaws and contradiction in its properties. Thus, X' can be proven nonexistent. That is independent of whether X exist or not.

    I am claiming that this thread fails to account for the "actual" God (X) as it only talks about "one interpretation" of God (X'). But the OP and several others are mixing X' and X up and trying to prove or disprove X by arguing existence or nonexistence of X'. This is a fallacy (as Mariner mentioned). I am wondering how they are going to talk about X with a OP like this.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    But the real question is not about X' (our interpretation of X), but rather about XMariner

    I don't agree on that. GreyScorpio is clearly referring to our (or actually a group of people in a specific religion) interpretation of God. Not the "actual" God that supposedly exists.

    I understand that you want to talk about the "actual" God, but that is not the case here, so you are basically off-topic.
  • Does a 'God' exist?
    I must say 1) definitely have a fallacy in the question itself.

    1. Let's say there is the true target of what we are trying to interpret as X.
    2. Whatever we actually interpret about X is X', and not X itself. (X' can be X, but we don't know at this point.)
    3. X' has been created with the same apprehensive ability we have. It follows that X' is able to apprehend by us with our senses.
    4. If X' cannot be apprehend by our senses, then interpretation of X (= X') must be a mistake.
    5. Therefore X' does not exist. (This does not mean X does not exist.)

    In the OP, GreyScorpio is clearly referring to X' (our interpretation of God).
  • The States in which God Exists
    The OP does not understand what "probability" is and how it works (as other people have mentioned)...this thread is already null before we can actually get into whether God exist or not.
  • Why I think God exists.
    This is a very bad logic.

    I don't know how you define "miracles" but it seems to me that there can be a better explanation to it than explaining it as an act of some divine being that you don't even know if it really exists. For example, the two examples of "miracle" you mentioned can simply be a hallucination.

    How many people out there had a fatal snake bite and died, against people that survived? This is a probabilistic thing. Statistically, some do survive. This is a fact. We can't call these miracles. Combined with hallucinations, this can be well explained. I know that was just an example, but most of the "miracles" out there are simply a statistically or probabilistically possible result.
  • Is the Math of QM the Central Cause of Everything we see?
    Does the Universe and the physical laws of physics happen because of math of QM or does the mathematics of QM just describe the behavior?Mike
    The latter.

    What is the cause of things like particle interactions and things like gravity and magnetism?
    I don't know how far into the "cause" you are talking about, but I'll tell you from the point of Quantum Field Theory.

    From the quantum chromodynamics' point of view, protons and neutrons are held together by "residual strong force". Proton and neutron exchange pions that keeps these two together. If you look even closer into it, gluons keep quarks together but also helps produce pions. You can consider this as particle interactions. So gluons are one of the many "force carriers".

    Force carrier of magnetism is photons.

    Theoretically, force carrier of gravity is gravitons. However, the existence of graviton has not been confirmed. It is a hypothetical particle.

    I am trying to understand what the interpretation for this question is. I hear some people say that math determines the behavior of the physical universe while others say that math just describes the behavior. Has this question been settled?

    Depends on the interpretation, but it is generally believed that math just describes the behavior. In light of new, better, and more compatible theory, the interpretation is subject to change. This is a philosophical aspect of physics, not science. I wouldn't go too much into it. I always keep an agnostic view of it. It's not that important either for science.
  • Zeno's paradox
    Space is infinitely divisible in mathematics under the definition of continuous space. Unfortunately, we do not really know whether this is applicable to our world. However, scientifically, it works better if it is.

    We don't know if reality is wrong, but before we can actually argue about that, we should be concerned about the logical fallacy made by Zeno.

    The fact that "one must first travel half way before getting to point A", and that this applies infinitely, is true. That is, however, irrelevant to whether one can move or not. This is because the argument that one must first travel half way is simply a requirement. It has nothing to do with whether one can actually travel that distance or not.
  • Why I think God exists.
    Why do you guys even bother discussing? It's kinda annoying seeing this thread back up when I come to PF. This thread isn't even worth 12 pages. It should have ended with the first three posts excluding OP. It's such a bad logic but this guy can't understand that despite being explained for 12 pages. Explaining his mistakes if futile at this point.
  • Why I think God exists.
    For the 15th time, you are unable to correctly address my point and come back with bullshit. I didn't even talk about information in the above post. WTF are you reading? You are talking about yourself with that pathetic post of yours. You are not even worthy of talking about science with this is the level wrong/biased/metaphysical knowledge you have with this much ignorance and arrogance, much less talk about others. Show this thread to a physicist, then. Share this thread in Physics Forum. See what you'll get.

    EDIT: Oh, wait. I forgot that you can't even tell the difference between a philosopher of science and a scientist. Then forget about what I've just said. You don't even know the right person to refer to.
  • Why I think God exists.
    I said it is your god damn turn. Answer the 1) 2) 3) and 4). This is not fair. I've gave an unbiased information and you completely ignored them once you know that you were wrong the whole time. It has been like that for all this time.

    You failed to address my point, once again. If you don't plan to read, then don't respond in the first place. This is obviously unfair. Why is it me that I will always address your concern and you don't. And even if you do, you can't even properly provide one single legitimate argument.

    For the third time, I freaking said I have an agnostic view of particles because it is subject to change in light of better theory. What the fuck are you reading? To conclude something as something is metaphysical as it can get. What you are doing is exactly metaphysics. I am wondering why you are blaming other people for doing something you are doing. Your links are always in contradicting with what you say. You insist on believing that particles are waves (which is not even a correct interpretation of De Broglie-Bohm theory), but this article provides that there is a disagreement with some other forms of interpretations. So then you are admitting that you are biased and metaphysical when you insist that particles are waves. Thank you, that is all I need to know. You are biased and a believer, far from a scientist. You are another one of those pop-culture science lovers that claims they know science and completely blow it.

    Non-scientist trying to act smart with a scientist is not a smart thing to do. Calling someone a failure as a scientist when you don't even understand a crap and contradicts yourself makes it even worse. I would've asked for more humble and modest approach if you don't understand something. Don't ever do that again, and I encourage you to never do that again with anyone.

    This is it. I am done. You are done. There is nothing to be discussed anymore. All I understood from you is that you understand nothing, and arguing with you is pointless because you refuse to address my points. This discussion was off-topic anyway (you made it that way). Thank you for wasting my time.
  • Why I think God exists.
    You really don't like reading other people's posts do you? Fine. But promise me you will read EVERY SINGLE WORD I have posted so far including this one. I will not accept further question if you fail to do this and say a bunch of irrelevant crap over and over again. I am being EXTREMELY generous with you right now, considering how much you offended me with no grounds whatsoever to back it up but with your delusions.

    1) Picture of pentacene taken by AFM (published in Nature Methods)
    These are clearly atoms arranged to form pentacene. Considering how AFM (Atomic Force Microscopy) is based on atomic force that barely affects the sample itself in terms of electronic structure, it accurately and truly shows the real molecule and how the atoms are arranged. If you think this not the actual image of atom because of "Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle", then you are uneducated and stupid. (in fact it is this uncertainty principle that allows us to see these atoms.)

    2) Ongoing discussion: Bohmian mechanics is an incomplete theory that is yet to be accepted throughout the scientific community. Poll ( shows that out of 33 participants in one of the quantum physics conference shows that 0% believed in Bohmian mechanics. This may be a total coincidence since college physics classes barely teach Bohmian mechanics, but that only further shows that it is not widely utilized. This poll is actually pretty fair since they ask the participants several questions and categorizes them based on the answer instead of just asking for the name of the interpretation they believe in. I highly suggest you read the article.

    3) I have shown no metaphysical ideas. Refer to this post:
    I have rather an agnostic view on the interpretation of Quantum mechanics because they are already completely reasonable the way it is. There is no need to complicate the story by attempting to interpret these with classically intuitive senses.FLUX23
    I don't care if what we call a particle is actually a classical particle (classical mechanics), quantum particle (quantum mechanics), or a quantum of a field (quantum field theory). They are merely interpretations that are subject to change when better theories are provided in the future. What matters to me is if it can reproduce experiments well. But I can still call a particle a "particle" because that is the term used to refer to these things.

    4) I did not use a priori knowledge to support a metaphysical definition as a settled scientific issue. It seems like you don't know what a priori knowledge means.
    Statement: Particle is particle.
    This statement is obviously true. This type of knowledge is called "a priori knowledge".
    Statement: Particle is a quantum of a field.
    This statement requires prior experiment or theoretical investigation to know. This type of knowledge is called "a posteriori knowledge".
    I argued that what you are presenting is only a posteriori knowledge. That is irrelevant to what Chany or I said about atoms and particles because the argument holds independent of what atom actually is. When we talk about "atom" in general, the target of the word "atom" refers to an atom or whatever they actually may be. So "atom" is an "atom" and this is independent of what they actually look like. The target of the word atom remains existent. This is a problem of logic. Not science at all. If you cannot accept this logic, then you don't even belong on this forum.

    Typically this type of question is something I should be doing to you. You are an offensive, ignorant, brat that knows nothing about science but pretends to know, base everything on personal preferences and unscientific speculations and personal metaphysical view, say a bunch of irrelevant crap, refuses to read what other people have written, fabricate facts, fabricate what other people says, and accuse them of wrongdoings that they have not committed. You are a very twisted person. I am so glad you are not a scientist.

    Your turn.

    1) Present all of the evidence. (Don't be biased)

    2) Admit to the ongoing discussions and disagreements among scientists. (Don't be biased)

    3) Refrain from presenting your metaphysical ideas and desires as scientific facts. (Believing in Bohmian mechanics and basing every argument under this assumption is nothing more than just metaphysics.)

    4) And clearly mark boundaries when you cross them. (You are the one doing it, not me.)
  • Why I think God exists.
    Okay, so you still refuse to read.

    I know a priori is not a scientific term. I'm not trying to say anything scientific by saying:
    Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring toFLUX23
    This is pure logic. There is nothing scientific about it. Why do you think I was talking scientific here?

    It seems like you don't understand what uncertainty principle is...Even worse, you also don't seem to understand what atom is...If you don't know these, why did you even think of arguing using these?

    I know there are scientist working on theoretical aspect of Bohmian mechanics. I never denied that. In fact, I've already mentioned that. Like I said, I know more than you do. What you have presented so far, I already know.

    So you are admitting that Bohmian mechanics is still faulty at the current stage, and that this is the reason most scientists are reluctant to use it. Thank you. Finally. This argument is done.

    Also, please don't accuse others of something before they accuse you in order to make the other person look like they are doing the wrong thing when in fact it is you. You are the metaphysicist here bro.

    EDIT: I hope this was the Physics Forum. You would have had to deal with hundreds of post that disagrees with you. Are there any physicist here?
  • Why I think God exists.
    Oh my God. I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS!!!! WHAT ARE YOU READING!!!!!!!!???????????

    If you are talking about the definition of a particle, then that is something else. Likewise, we can say that about every single thing in this world. I'm sitting on a chair right now, but I am not sure if I can call a stone outside that people are treating it as a chair, a chair. If you are confused about the definition of a particle because you are confused about the distinction between a classical particle and a quantum mechanical particle, then we are talking about something else. You are perhaps confusing the difference between how things should be defined, with how things are. If not, then read below.FLUX23

    This is fallacious as a response to what Chany said ( Chany's argument bases itself on the fact that, whatever an atom actually may be, atom must exist. Whether particles are classical particles, quantum particles, or quanta of a field, the target of the term particles still exists. It has not disappeared out of the concept. We can later redefine "atom", but that does not mean the target of what Chany said as "atom" has disappeared out of this world. It's just that there is another better and suitable noun to refer to "atom" in light of new evidence.FLUX23

    TheMadFool talks about an object called "God" that we do not know if it, in any form that it actually refers to, really exists. But he claims to scientifically prove its existence based on the fact that people are affected by the belief that it exists. This is, like you said, a bad fallacious argument. Chany attempted explaining this by talking about atoms. Chany's argument does not base itself on the premise that atom is what people classically refer to as atoms. The term "atom" is used in a way to refer to something that actually exists, and does not depend on whether what it actually may be. Whether or not an (classical) atom is actually something else, that "something" still exists. Chany claims that to argue in the way TheMadFool did, that "something" must exist. I think your type of fallacy is called referential fallacy or something. I told you about a priori and a posteriori knowledge because of this.FLUX23

    Elementary particles are elementary particles by definition, a priori knowledge. There is no assumption here. The target of the term "particle", may be a wave like you mention (actually, de Broglie–Bohm theory does not consider particles the way you do so you are wrong here too), a quantum of a field, or a classical particle, it doesn't matter. That is a posteriori knowledge. That does not deny the existence of the target in which the term "particle" is referring to.FLUX23

    You are the metaphysicist here. You are the wrong one here. You are the one using old tactics to justify yourself. You are the one unable to correctly understand anything because you are clueless. You are the one misinterpreting other people's argument because you are ignoring them.

    Using freaking offensive words to me without any grounds to back it up is just lame.

    I didn't even talk single thing about metaphysics in my post. I already said I have agnostic view of any interpretation of quantum mechanics because it's unscientific to attempt interpreting it.

    Also, the link provides arguments that is against your views. What are you doing?