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:
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 objectsOne could consider a stream of electrons and see what effect they have on other objects. They are quite obviously physical.
you seriously think there is absolutely no distinction between watching TV and verifying the physical existence of electrons?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.
why its just the random nature of reality.How do you think the picture appears on the screen? Magic?
If you don't have direct perception, what are you accepting on?If you accept the definition of electrons, then no, there is no difference.
hence there is more to verifying a claim than simply talking about it .... what remains is the issue of practical applicationEven 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...
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.
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 you don't have direct perception, what are you accepting on?
faith?
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.hence there is more to verifying a claim than simply talking about it .... what remains is the issue of practical application
You're right - while it could be amusing to continue on with the charade I don't really have the stamina at the momentI guess you're trying to draw some parallel with rebuttals of the arugment from design.
I know you don't really think that the picture on the TV appears by chance. Obviously, there is something causing it.
What?
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)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.
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 observationsIf 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.
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.But still it remains there is a huge distinction between merely watching a television and ascertaining the nature of electrons
sure, but the common retort from the atheist crowd is that one is simply spouting from a book.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?