Of God, Fields, Particles And Holes

There is no need to separate science and God.

That is the concept behind the words "God is omnipresent" and the words "Thoonilum iruppaan, thurumbilum iruppaaan" (He is present in the pillars (referring to the huge) and He is present even in dust).

We can explain everything with mathematics and logic, and explain that mathematics once more, but at one point we cannot explain the "why" and the "what" and the "how".

For example we take a beautiful flower and can explain why it is that color, what pigment gives it that color, the chemical composition of the pigment, the atoms in the chemical composition, the structures of each atom, and some on that subatomic structure, until at one point we just cannot (or the human brain is limited to) find an answer to the why, how, or what.

Same as we go outwards to the universe, parallel universe, cycle of the universe... at one point we just do not know.

At that point we concede all to that unknown power as "God'.

There is a prevalent belief that those who have a scientific bent of mind do not believe in God. This is far from truth. The scientists I know of all are in awe of that final "Who", "Why" "What" "How" and "Where"- that Unknown . Some call it "God" some don't. That's the only difference.

Also not everything needs to be proved all the time. Some just "are".

 

When friends inquire about the origin of reality, I am intrigued if it is jocularly rhetorical or fulfillingly earnest: which is, seeking advanced perspectives. I have had thinkers in my life who redirected me to stimulating narratives and ideas and timelines on how such inquiry was indulged. I wonder ...how it would have been if they had humored and not nurtured such curiosity in me. I don't know if there is a Novalis out there, who though is vague in her inquiry, is struggling to filter in implicating hypothesis out of specious and cliched proclamations.

I usually compose my posts keeping in mind of such lurking Novalis.

Your contemplation is labeled "why is there something rather than nothing" in the philosophy of inquiry. Many books, articles, discussions are available on this precise line of inquiry. (I find it difficult to ferret credible references without accurate keywords to search for it. Sometimes it takes me hours to figure out that vocabulary and identifiers to search on.) You are in for some luck as that 'something rather than nothing' is a popular trope in ontology.

Back to your inquiry, many are stonewalled at the well-known "principle of sufficient reason" of Leibniz, and concede to some Creator. (Must be the handiwork of a creator!)

How to think beyond that barrier?

That "something rather than nothing" semantic search should lead you to techniques on how to think beyond a supernatural creator.

It is the technique to think that matters!

For beginners, Sean Carroll's podcast here subverts the creator prompting to think in ways, if not a creator, what are our options and how to pursue them. Again, a creator is a stopgap for our common intelligence, but we wish to assimilate logic beyond that unassailable dictum. Mind you, the podcast is meandering but furnishes you with "ideas" not necessarily gratifying to any existing belief.

Again, it is the technique to think that matters in such frontier discussions. Think beyond ..push yourself to imagine beyond.

 

@satchi,
At first, looking at the title, I thought you too were on a space mission like @kkrish. Chalo, eh discussion kissi aur mod pe hai. I will be back here after I finish the urgent job I am committed to.

 

"ME TOO*
REGARDS.

 

Simply put, it has nothing to do with God and anything that is beyond understanding by the known science is attributed to Almighty for the time being till it is proved.
2. He mr Peter Higgs anticipated there must be a energy field which imparts mass to particle which later coalesce. It is understood Higgs and his French collaborator and other scientists never liked the boson particle nicknamed as god particle .
3. Believing or disbelieving or not knowing the existence of God has nothing do with science. But in general scientific and medical professions believe there is something beyond and that could be the reason “why” certain things happen in the universe and the business of the scientists is to unravel those secrets or and processes and how it happens or should happen but only the Great Designer knows The “WHY” of things.
3. One finds in the scientific world what was proved earlier after some days disproved. Some say Darwin was wrong. They feel they are not evolved from apes or and monkeys. What is provedturn outto be wrong and disproved very next day.
4. Having said all this, I wonder why an agnosist should wonder about boson particle. Just to make it sensational some associated it with God. Believing in God is free of cost. Being theist might be good. Might boost positivity. Must lend hope to desperate and destitute. Might do so many wonders.
5. Late Rajaji staunch Hindu believer, theist lived life to the hilt and when he died his arch adversary and atheist, rationalist Father Periyar sat by his body for over five hours shedding tears. Very next Xmas the latter too joined the former in “heavens”!!!
6. Proved or disproved, theories to be formulated tested and put to practical use. But one need not wait for some one to prove to take his or her decision.
Man proposes God disposes!

 

Perfect!

Growing up on a generous dose of mythological stories and NTR movies, I never doubted the existence of God. But in teens, when I was compelled to attend religious classes, I rebelled, argued and sulked. Later, I admired His creativity, creations and surrendered. Years later, I could feel His strong presence everywhere. Yes, I am absolutely convinced about the presence of a higher power, God. But...I am not ritualistic or a believer of myths. (The human mind is strange, It fears God and tries to appease Him! How can silly materialistic things appease Him?)

When we see the negatives or suffer, we doubt His existence; recounting His positive blessings helps to regain faith or belief.

This reminds me of something I had read ages back, though I can't recall specifics. A scientist or a thinker was asked why he followed some religious customs when there was no proof of God? His answer was, it is a small effort or activity here for me. After death, if I don't find Him, I would dismiss my earthly activity as silly and laugh it off. What if I find Him? Then my regret of not doing those activities would be far greater, so I better do it!

It took several centuries to prove that the earth was spherical or that it revolved around the sun. Was there anything new here? Every scientist Discovers something that has existed always! Waiting for scientific proof for everything is an impossible expectation.

Nice thread, Satchi, I liked it.