How can a single subatomic particle exist without God?

[Mind Over Matter]

Mind Over Matter:



We don't know yet, because we can't do any experiment that distinguishes dimensional points from things such as superstrings.

We have a pretty good idea though, especially since it is doubtful that we'll ever find evidence of "superstrings," considering that they are postulated within other dimensions (also postulated) and are past-extended (outside of time).

Subatomic particles don't think - at least not unless there are many of them arranged just so. As for the other abilities, I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly one particle can set off a chain of causation. And certainly one particle can cause the creation of other particles.

One of many theoretical models.

You think introducing a massively more complex entity - God - is somehow more elegant than building things bottom-up according to some simple laws of physics?

But see, I don't believe that God is "massively more complex". I think God is, at a different level, one with continuous space. This succinctly answers the question of what is it that is outside of the universe.

You want to explain complexity by introducing something even more complex?

Rather, I think it's the other way 'round. "Superstring" is outside of the boundaries of our investigational abilities - it is merely a theoretical postulation. We have to go from there to reality, and merely because it seems to work mathematically for certain calculations, does not show that it is the better postulation.

As the model indicates, at least two superstrings were out there colliding with each other forever, until at one collision, the big bang resulted. The question is, "out where?" "forever?" Outside of the laws of physics, "colliding" into one another? What would cause one event, in an infinity of like events, to result in the big bang?

Remember my OP: I asked about a "single subatomic particle" needing more than itself. I think it does. Even in the "superstring" scenario, there are at least two subatomic particles that are required. Is one of them God, or an effect of God?

 

[James R]

Mind Over Matter:

You think God may be a subatomic particle?

That's quite a different kind of god from the God who answers prayers, sends his son to die for your sins and so on.

 

[Aqueous Id]

Any thoughts?

I would show that: A single subatomic particle must exist without God.

The notion of God is an ancient myth, which has no bearing on subatomic particle existence theory. Therefore any causal connection is non sequitur. The notion of God as an answer to the cause of any mystery in the natural world, is transferral. That is, we simply reassign the unfathomable mystery to another one which is a fabrication, then invent any suitable extensions to the imaginary God as needed to perpetuate the imagined link.

Therefore, a single subatomic particle must exist without God.

 

[Cavalier]

For the same reason you need a god, or an Ubergod. If every particle needs a creator, and a creator needs a creator of its own in turn, then there's no end to how many creators are needed. Point is, you can't argue that the subatomic particle needs a god and then say a god doesn't need a god,

Right, or. stated slightly differently: If you are going to simply assert that subatomic particles need a creator, then you cannot simply assert that God does not need a creator without a ironclad argument, but there is no such argument. Instead Mind Over Matter seems to assume that particles are created and then implicitly assume that God does not.

That is no more logically coherent that making the opposite set of assumptions, i.e. that particles are eternal and that God was created by some other being.

So, thanks be unto Occam's Razor, I can give you an even simpler answer than "God created particles", which is "Particles are eternal." That's simpler in many ways, including the fact that it eliminates the need for an eternal omnipotent deity whose ways we cannot comprehend and replaces that eternal, far more simple particles.

Of course, in fact, particles are not eternal, but I am merely pointing out that if you accept Mind Over Matter's argument, then this point of view should seem even more attractive because its even simpler. The main reason to accept MOM's argument over this one is that you WANT to believe in God's role in creation. That's fine, but it begs the question that was at issue.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I'd say "The Standard Model" (quarks, leptons, all that good stuff) is just that--a model to explain the results of very expensive and complicated experiments. Many philosophers and physicists (the "anti-realist" crowd) would dispute that the model has a fundamental relation to ultimate reality. (Read Bernard d'Espagnat's "Phyics and Philosophy" for a description of the "veiled reality" lying behind quantum mechanics; and Bas van Fraassen's "Laws and Symmetry"). String theory is mathematical metaphysics, since it has any number of possible interpretations (landscapes) and cannot be falsified or confirmed by any conceivable experiment (never mind the impossibility of attaining sufficiently high energy accelerators to test it; read Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong"). In 50 years (if the world can survive the leftist hierarchy and in Europe and the Islamist terrorists), the physical theories we have now may be superseded by something unimaginably different, as has happened in the past.
Rather than saying a single subatomic particle needs God, I'd rephrase by saying God is manifested as the infinite, both in mathematics and in the world of the mind.