Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
From Raindrop And Up (to Heavens).

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Alexander on July 3, 2001 00:58:14 UTC

Try to figure out if indeed God controls raindrop fall - and you will find that He does not, raindrop strictly obeys interplay of gravity with wind (plus aerodynamics) and lands where this interplay is interrupted by the ground.

Try to analyse what constitutes, for example, aerodynamics - why raindrop slows due to air drag - and you will find no God, but electromagnetic interaction of molecules.

Try to figure out what makes wind (uneven heating/cooling of Earth), what makes thunderstorm to develop - and you will find no Gods but complex interplay of fundamental forces under direction of conservation laws.

Chemistry, life, evolution, brain - in close analysis are similar complex system of interplay of electromagnetic force alone (ruling the behaviour of molecules) under strict control of conservation laws, and no God or ANY EXTRA force/law was ever found to govern these systems.

All we see, smell and love, comes from 3 fundamental forces and a few fundamental conservation rules - nothing else (no Gods here).

Analysing fundamental forces themselves (gravity. e/magn and nuclear)as well as conservation laws, again we find no God behind, but beautiful mathematical symmetries.

So, investigating origin of those symmetries in depth we may end up with only one fundamental "physical" entity (like space-time itself, or vacuum, or strings), or even with zero "tangible" objects at all: the space-time or vacuum itself can be a mathematical consequence of something deeper.

Say, such "tangible" thing as force does not exist - it is the result of momentum exchange during interaction with "messenger"bosons (F=dp/dt). Another tangible property of matter is mass(inertia) - but we know that fields and any energy have inertia, - so mass is likely to be a mathematical property of eny energy. Frankly, I do not even know what it "tangible" in our universe - everything turns to be mathematical property of anything else.

That is why in the equation God=Math=Natural laws I feel no need in the first term. Or, say, we may define God by similar equation: God=mathematical symmetries, but what for? Why to introduce extra synonim? If just to stress (or respect) the power of math, then completely OK. But some people when they hear word "God" may associate it not with math, but with some unexisting Santa which can somehow make human DNA and proteins out of inorganic clay violating most natural laws in process of doing so. And because there is no such Santa, it is unnesessary and rather confusing complication to introduce word which for most mean just such Santa-god.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2021 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins