This should probably be in the physics section but.......
- Thread starter Tnerb
- Start date
If only there were. Unfortunately for believers, no physical necessity for a God exists.
well suppose we were discussing whether there is a physical basis to the existence of electronsThere is a physical basis to the existence of God.
Refute:
Discuss:
How do you suppose such a discussion would progress?
One could consider a stream of electrons and see what effect they have on other objects. They are quite obviously physical.
so I guess there are a few technical issues of qualification of persons whoa re observing the "physical" nature, since most people don't have much experience of a stream of electrons, much less what effect they have on other objects
Yes they do if they have ever seen a cathode ray tube. The theory that there are electrons is proven a useful model due to the fact that we can use that theory to make a TV.
you seriously think there is absolutely no distinction between watching TV and verifying the physical existence of electrons?
If you accept the definition of electrons, then no, there is no difference. Even if you call it by some other name, something in the physical realm is happening there. It would be slightly more complex to demontrate that it was a particle, that it was negatively charged, that it was very lightweight compared to an atom...
why its just the random nature of reality.
If I happen to see a picture on a screen it is just chance.
If you don't have direct perception, what are you accepting on?
faith?
hence there is more to verifying a claim than simply talking about it .... what remains is the issue of practical application
I guess you're trying to draw some parallel with rebuttals of the arugment from design.why its just the random nature of reality.
If I happen to see a picture on a screen it is just chance.
I know you don't really think that the picture on the TV appears by chance. Obviously, there is something causing it.
What?
We can see some effect in a cathode ray tube. Wether we call it electrons or some other name, there is something to be seen there. By a series of experiments, the definition of the electron emerges. Wether or not this represents ultimate reality is unknown, (more details have emerged since it's discovery) but it's physicality is easily demonstrated, the TV being the most obvious example.
If I may suggest, one should not accept that there is something called an electron with defined properties until you perform or see performed the experiments that defined it's properties. To say an electron exists doesn't really say anything about the ultimate reality of that concept. It only means that the model of an electron fits what we observe.
You're right - while it could be amusing to continue on with the charade I don't really have the stamina at the moment
But still it remains there is a huge distinction between merely watching a television and ascertaining the nature of electrons - if it wasn't the case, there would be no need to study advanced physics just to explain what is going on. To anyone else who violates such a prerequisite it might as well as be "magic".
Once again, there is more to demonstrating an electron than watching TV - whether you call it an electron or something else doesn't really matter, since any lay person watching a tv doesn't see any electrons (even though the technical aspects of the tv may require such knowledge)
and since a lay person doesn't see anything with the defined properties of an electron, it doesn't appear to be a model that fits with their observations
Certainly. But you only need to observe a TV working to know that there is "something" in the technology that exists with a physical basis with very predictable behaviour. A little logic and a little knowledge of cathode ray tubes and their history (the sort you can get from reading Wikipedia) is enough to ascertain that the "something" is electrons - tiny things with specific charge and mass.
Can you say the same about God?
sure, but the common retort from the atheist crowd is that one is simply spouting from a book.
IOW if I hold wiki in contempt (and remain blissfully recalcitrant to the suggestion of taking a serious interest in practical physics), I can say that your spiel about electrons is simply a "god of the gaps" - you are talking about a "something" and are just calling it an electron due to your faith based belief system, etc etc.
In short, if I insist on verification and stubbornly refuse to approach the practices that verification requires, I will remain a difficult customer to please.