Dear Banjo, Not_Now.S,

Perhaps this link

https://www.sciencealert.com/physicists-say-they-ve-managed-to-manipulate-pure-nothingness

might make you think twice before identifying the philosophical [or common sense] meaning of “nothing” with quantum vacuum with its fluctuations that physicists now try to manipulate. Whatever they will come about with, I do not think they will claim having created matter out of nothing. “God created the world from nothing” or “God exists” are statements in the language of philosophy (theology) where the terms have each a meaning that cannot be explained as terms or statements from within science. So seeking scientifiv evidence for these philosophical positions that can convince everybody (like proofs in mathematics) is futile and naive. “Nothing” in philosophical sense means absence of anything, and quantum vacuum that can fluctuate and be manipulated is certainly “anything”. [”Noting” in common sense is meant e.g. when I say there is nothing in my wallet.]

It is like looking for ansewrs in the theory of topological spaces when your problem concerns you living space, or vice versa, looking for solution to problems in the theory of topological space by looking at your personal experiance with your living space.

Dear Banjo,

According to the OED, 'Hypothesis'="A supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation".

Now I really don't know anyone who believes that a supposition of the above kind created the world, controls it, plays any major part in its running and/or is worthy of worship. Do you?

«but I respect your belief that God is not just a hypothesis but an “established” fact»

While I do not believe God to be an hypotheses, I do not believe God to be a fact either (established or otherwise). Further, had God been a fact, then He/She/It would not be worthy of worship.

Since you object the use of "things", you may simply replace "thing(s)" by "object(s) in my earlier statement: "Existence is for things: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just a thing".

«The objective reality of a God or Gods has never been indisputably established. Perhaps it will be sometime in the future.»

Well I am convinced that this will never happen because God is not an object. Should I be wrong, then that object which people ironically call 'God', should never be sought or worshipped.

Actually we seem to have no argument - don't you share those same convictions with me, that:
1) No objective reality of God will ever be indisputably established.
2) Had such a reality been nevertheless established, then the reality in question would not be worthy of worship.

?

---

Dear George,

Thank you for this beautiful clarification.

The Upanishads describe space as the subtlest material from which grosser materials emerged, in this order: air (nothing to do with the vaporised particles that we breathe), fire (nothing to do with chemical oxidisation), water (which modern science identifies as energy) and earth (which modern science identifies as particled matter).

What modern science terms "quantum vacuum" may one day be identified as what the ancients referred to as "space", "air" or "fire" (one of the three). The absence of energy and particles does not imply the absence of subtler matter.

After reading these posts, I get the feeling "God_is>Google" www.

//"Existence is for things: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just a thing".//

"The argument goes something like this: 'I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, 'for proof denies faith, and without faith, I am nothing.' 'But, says Man, the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' 'Oh dear,' says God, 'I hadn't thought of that,' and vanishes in a puff of logic."
- 'Well That About Wraps It Up For God' by Oolon Colluphid

.

Dear George,

.

Indeed, the “nothing” I was referring to was the nothing in a quantum vacuum :

« a state devoid of ordinary matter in which virtual particle–antiparticle pairs are continually created and annihilated through quantum fluctuations »

Here is a brief résumé of how the team of 20 American physicists created matter out of that “state devoid of ordinary matter” in 1997 :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/09/970918045841.htm

Here is a résumé of another research paper by physicists of the University of California, Los Angeles, published in 2005, which provides a possible explanation of how the matter of the universe was created :

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150225132255.htm

Then there is the résumé in Science Alert for which you kindly posted a link regarding research carried out in 2015 by a team led by Alfred Leitenstorfer from the University of Konstanz in Germany.

What all this adds up to is that a number of physicists around the world are actively seeking to solve the mystery of how the universe was created.

It’s not going to happen overnight and probably not in my lifetime or even in that of my children or grandchildren, but I am confident we will get there in the end. As I indicated in my most recent post to Not_Now.Soon, we have only just begun to scratch the surface. We have a long, long way to go.

As it seems that human and chimpanzees’ genes split about 13 million years ago, it has taken us 13 million years to get to where we are today. Can you imagine what we’ll know about the universe and our origins in another 13 million years’ time ?

The total life span of humans on planet earth having been estimated at roughly 1.5 billion years, that will still leave us with 1.474 billion years to reap the benefit of our knowledge and, hopefully, put it to good use.

.

.

Dear Yuyutsu,

.

You ask :

« Now I really don't know anyone who believes that a supposition of the above kind created the world, controls it, plays any major part in its running and/or is worthy of worship. Do you? »

Yes, I know quite a lot of people who believe that. In addition, I understand that approx. 51% of the world population believe it, i.e., about 3.93 billion people, in 2018 – and I have the impression that you are one of them, Yuyutsu – but please correct me if I am wrong.

As far as I can ascertain form your posts on this forum, you are not an atheist, an agnostic or an ordinary person such as myself. You constantly state that your objective is to get closer to God and to worship him. I interpret that to mean that you believe in some version or other of God that you indicated on a previous thread, you are unable to define.

And as it has never been indisputably established that there is such a God, I consider that you believe in a hypothetical God. In doing so, I do not mean that to be in any way disparaging, but simply the most appropriate manner to describe the situation. So, please do not be offended.

Again, you insist : "Existence is for things: had God existed, then that would reduce Him(/Her/It) to being just a thing". Perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate the source of that definition as it is certainly not the usual definition in the English language as I pointed out in my previous post to you (cf. the OED definition).

Existence is not limited to things or objects. It designates each and all that is.

You ask if I share your conviction that :

1) No objective reality of God will ever be indisputably established.

2) Had such a reality been nevertheless established, then the reality in question would not be worthy of worship.

My reply is :

1) I don’t share that conviction

2) I never worship whatever the circumstances

.