Apologetics: witnessing to atheists

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
GWH said:
rew, your ref to Blue I think meant me, so here are my comments on yours:

1. We agree.
2. Please note that the reference was to creatures with higher order language, moral conscience and God consciousness (personality),
which your reply failed to notice.
3. What was once unachievable can be achievable later, such as flying.
4. Evidence for the bodily resurrection of Jesus is better than for anyone else, and thus his resurrection is more credible. One of the strongest arguments is 1Cor. 15:13-20, but even Paul who experienced Christ on the road to Damascus said 2Cor. 5:7.
5. The NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced IMO.

Historical accounts and scientific argumenta are fine until/unless there is good reason to doubt them and amend one's understanding.

Over...
Click to expand...

2) I agree that I did not mention "higher order" language because we do not know how complex most animal's languages are Sign language using primates have astonished people with how they can express things. Moral conscience is likewise outside our ability to know, as is God consciousness. We do know that some animals will present false signs in order to gain something they desire from another though.

3) agreed, but promissory evidence is meaningless, it can always be delivered tomorrow, but never today, thus never having to be delivered. Think trickledown economics, it will work it just always needs one more day than it has had to produce results.

4) As for Paul's observation in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is terribly ambiguous. He acknowledges seeing the risen Christ, the same one others saw, but he does not describe just what it was he saw in any detail. It could have been a physical person, object or a mystical vision, all would qualify from what he said.

Historical records and accounts get ignored when applied to Ephesians. If Ephesians references current events and not some potential OT reference that has been updated for some reason, it raises HUGE issues for the reliability of Acts. It does make it authentically Pauline and dates it to a brief period of time, but the implications are horrifying. It would explain a lot but would be death to traditional understandings. (explaining can be done in 40 8-1/2x11 pages of 11 point with footnotes in 10 point).
 
rewriter said:
2) I agree that I did not mention "higher order" language because we do not know how complex most animal's languages are Sign language using primates have astonished people with how they can express things. Moral conscience is likewise outside our ability to know, as is God consciousness. We do know that some animals will present false signs in order to gain something they desire from another though.

3) agreed, but promissory evidence is meaningless, it can always be delivered tomorrow, but never today, thus never having to be delivered. Think trickledown economics, it will work it just always needs one more day than it has had to produce results.

4) As for Paul's observation in 1 Corinthians 15, Paul is terribly ambiguous. He acknowledges seeing the risen Christ, the same one others saw, but he does not describe just what it was he saw in any detail. It could have been a physical person, object or a mystical vision, all would qualify from what he said.

Historical records and accounts get ignored when applied to Ephesians. If Ephesians references current events and not some potential OT reference that has been updated for some reason, it raises HUGE issues for the reliability of Acts. It does make it authentically Pauline and dates it to a brief period of time, but the implications are horrifying. It would explain a lot but would be death to traditional understandings. (explaining can be done in 40 8-1/2x11 pages of 11 point with footnotes in 10 point).
Click to expand...

rew, regarding #2, I think it is more correct to say that as far as we know animals cannot communicate via higher order language (manifested by writing, although they can be trained to respond to cues and rewards as well as show affection), nor are they aware of sin and God. If you have a better way of distinguishing humans from animals, please share it.

3. Glad we agree, but it is more correct to say that we may be able to be saved or to become immortal in a heavenly existence in the future, but the only credible evidence we now have is the resurrection of Jesus, which was believed by purported eye-witnesses who viewed lying as akin to murder, so we must walk by faith and hope for the best (Rom. 8:23-25).

4. I agree that Paul does not describe immortality in detail, but I tend to agree with Immanuel Kant that we can't imagine alternative reality in other than earthly terms. Thus, I am satisfied with Paul's logical inference that the resurrected body will have "spiritual" qualities, beginning with immortality. For the rest I am content to walk by faith and expect to be pleasantly surprised by heavenly existence.

What about #5?: The NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced IMO. Do you agree?

Did your reference to Ephesians mean to say Galatians?
 
GWH said:
rew, regarding #2, I think it is more correct to say that as far as we know animals cannot communicate via higher order language (manifested by writing, although they can be trained to respond to cues and rewards as well as show affection), nor are they aware of sin and God. If you have a better way of distinguishing humans from animals, please share it.

3. Glad we agree, but it is more correct to say that we may be able to be saved or to become immortal in a heavenly existence in the future, but the only credible evidence we now have is the resurrection of Jesus, which was believed by purported eye-witnesses who viewed lying as akin to murder, so we must walk by faith and hope for the best (Rom. 8:23-25).

4. I agree that Paul does not describe immortality in detail, but I tend to agree with Immanuel Kant that we can't imagine alternative reality in other than earthly terms. Thus, I am satisfied with Paul's logical inference that the resurrected body will have "spiritual" qualities, beginning with immortality. For the rest I am content to walk by faith and expect to be pleasantly surprised by heavenly existence.

What about #5?: The NT teachings of Jesus and Paul seem to be the most highly inspired when compared with other scriptures (including the OT), because its concept of one God as the just and all-loving Judge (rationale for morality) is spiritually highest or most advanced IMO. Do you agree?

Did your reference to Ephesians mean to say Galatians?
Click to expand...

2) With regards to animals, training only goes so far. I believe it was Koko, who had learned sign language and when referencing a swan, for which no word had been taught, referred to it as a "water bird". Such was not taught but intuited by Koko. As for awareness of sin and God, how would we know if they are aware of such? And also, regarding sin, would not the following meet the full requirements of sin? According to modern consciousness studies, we appear to be 4-dimensional interconnected entities that can move back and forth in time living in a 3-dimensional apparently disconnected universe in which time only moves forward, and both accepting this 3-dimensional disconnected universe as real and acting accordingly?

3) I agree that the reporters viewed lying as a major crime, but I suspect they also recognized what we call "Situational Ethics", where lying to prevent a far worse outcome was considered to be, while not good, acceptable.

4) No argument.

5) I will accept them as excellent. They are largely commentary on the key points of the OT, but I do find them more acceptable than the teaching of any other major religion I have studied.

No, I meant Ephesians. If Ephesians is Pauline, and I think it is, and if it references what were then current events in Eastern Anatolia, major coincidence if it doesn't, then Acts MUST BE pure cover story for things the church would not want to admit, not objective history.
 
rewriter said:
2) With regards to animals, training only goes so far. I believe it was Koko, who had learned sign language and when referencing a swan, for which no word had been taught, referred to it as a "water bird". Such was not taught but intuited by Koko. As for awareness of sin and God, how would we know if they are aware of such? And also, regarding sin, would not the following meet the full requirements of sin? According to modern consciousness studies, we appear to be 4-dimensional interconnected entities that can move back and forth in time living in a 3-dimensional apparently disconnected universe in which time only moves forward, and both accepting this 3-dimensional disconnected universe as real and acting accordingly?

3) I agree that the reporters viewed lying as a major crime, but I suspect they also recognized what we call "Situational Ethics", where lying to prevent a far worse outcome was considered to be, while not good, acceptable.

4) No argument.

5) I will accept them as excellent. They are largely commentary on the key points of the OT, but I do find them more acceptable than the teaching of any other major religion I have studied.

No, I meant Ephesians. If Ephesians is Pauline, and I think it is, and if it references what were then current events in Eastern Anatolia, major coincidence if it doesn't, then Acts MUST BE pure cover story for things the church would not want to admit, not objective history.
Click to expand...

2. No, that description did not even mention sin, and I do not see a better way suggested for distinguishing animals from humans,
so may interpret that as tacit agreement with mine?

3. I don't see how situational ethics would justify lying about the resurrection of Jesus. I think they were more prone to doubt it would occur.

4. Yay!

5. Ditto.

You completely lost me regarding Ephesians, in which I find God's POS in chapter 1, how to be saved in 2, the Gentiles are included in God's POS in 2-3, how to become a mature Christian in 4, moral teachings in 4-5 and the armor of God in 6.
 
Situational ethics, if Paul had been arrested in eastern Anatolia, as would be implied, especially if Ephesians 6 and the armor of God. was referencing current events, the charge would have been treason. This charge would also fit with the recorded persecutions of Christians under Nero in 64, and all subsequent persecutions. Now, which would have been worse, lying to despised Roman officials whom you expected God to overthrow sometime soon or suggesting to these same officials that ALL Christians were guilty of treason against Rome and that the proof could be found?

Galatians 3:1 implies that doubt would not be an issue, at least IMHO.

And I trust that you noticed that the eschatology in Ephesians is unique among Paul's epistles, almost like he thought the end was coming within an extremely short time. Also, I trust you noticed that I was very specific about the time frame for Ephesians and Paul's transfer to Rome.
 
rewriter said:
Situational ethics, if Paul had been arrested in eastern Anatolia, as would be implied, especially if Ephesians 6 and the armor of God. was referencing current events, the charge would have been treason. This charge would also fit with the recorded persecutions of Christians under Nero in 64, and all subsequent persecutions. Now, which would have been worse, lying to despised Roman officials whom you expected God to overthrow sometime soon or suggesting to these same officials that ALL Christians were guilty of treason against Rome and that the proof could be found?

Galatians 3:1 implies that doubt would not be an issue, at least IMHO.

And I trust that you noticed that the eschatology in Ephesians is unique among Paul's epistles, almost like he thought the end was coming within an extremely short time. Also, I trust you noticed that I was very specific about the time frame for Ephesians and Paul's transfer to Rome.
Click to expand...

Please be more specific in your references. By eastern Anatolia do you mean Tarsus?
And what does that location have to do with anything?
Where in Ephesians is the eschatology you have in mind? It sounds like settling in for the long haul to me (Eph. 4:11-28).

For Paul and the other disciples to have lied would be completely out of character (Rom. 9:1, cf. Acts 4:19-20, 5:29-32).

In Gal. 3:1 Paul scolds folks for reverting to salvation via works, thereby perverting the Gospel (Eph. 2:8-10).
 
GWH said:
Please be more specific in your references. By eastern Anatolia do you mean Tarsus?
And what does that location have to do with anything?
Where in Ephesians is the eschatology you have in mind? It sounds like settling in for the long haul to me (Eph. 4:11-28).

For Paul and the other disciples to have lied would be completely out of character (Rom. 9:1, cf. Acts 4:19-20, 5:29-32).

In Gal. 3:1 Paul scolds folks for reverting to salvation via works, thereby perverting the Gospel (Eph. 2:8-10).
Click to expand...

Galatians 3:1b "Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified" where do you get criticizing people for salvation by works out of that?

Citing Acts in support of Acts is meaningless and Romans was written well before the outcome of the 1st Jewish war was known. Also, Luke was not Paul nor an apostle, he appears to have been a lay person trying to appease Rome.

As for the eschatology, the general tenor of the entire epistle is one of more a short term, circle the wagons, type of style than his other letters. Many scholars have noticed this and it is frequently cited as a reason to doubt Pauline authorship.

The almost the entire eastern portion of Anatolia was under the jurisdiction of Corbulo for a time, Cilicia might have been an exception, so pinpointing where in this region Paul was arrested would be impossible. But the current events in that region were unique in the 1st century, two brand new legions were being raised, and a third legion was being totally reequipped and retrained, all in the period between 55 and early 58 (at the outside).
 
rewriter said:
Galatians 3:1b "Before your very eyes Jesus Christ was clearly portrayed as crucified" where do you get criticizing people for salvation by works out of that?

Citing Acts in support of Acts is meaningless and Romans was written well before the outcome of the 1st Jewish war was known. Also, Luke was not Paul nor an apostle, he appears to have been a lay person trying to appease Rome.

As for the eschatology, the general tenor of the entire epistle is one of more a short term, circle the wagons, type of style than his other letters. Many scholars have noticed this and it is frequently cited as a reason to doubt Pauline authorship.

The almost the entire eastern portion of Anatolia was under the jurisdiction of Corbulo for a time, Cilicia might have been an exception, so pinpointing where in this region Paul was arrested would be impossible. But the current events in that region were unique in the 1st century, two brand new legions were being raised, and a third legion was being totally reequipped and retrained, all in the period between 55 and early 58 (at the outside).
Click to expand...

Re Gal. 3:1b: That is what they should continue to believe; 3:2-3 is what they were reverting to.
It sounds like you did not read Acts 4:19-20 and 5:29-32. Surely Paul was as brave and honest as Peter!

If Paul would be against lying in Rom. 9:1 there is no good reason to think he would be for lying after the war.
You give Luke way too little respect for suffering along with Paul during his journeys (Col. 4:4, 2Tim. 4:11, Phm. 24).

I note you cite no passage in Ephesians portraying a short term eschatology, whereas I did so regarding the long term;
what passages do those scholars cite for doubting that trump the ones I cited for believing?
I still fail to see the significance of legions being equipped in the opposite end of Anatolia from Ephesus.

We seem to be getting off track per the OP, so I may try to get us back on the subject soon.
 
GWH said:
Re Gal. 3:1b: That is what they should continue to believe; 3:2-3 is what they we reverting to.
It sounds like you did not read Acts 4:19-20 and 5:29-32. Surely Paul was as brave and honest as Peter!

If Paul would be against lying in Rom. 9:1 there is no good reason to think he would be for lying after the war.
You give Luke way too little respect for suffering along with Paul during his journeys (Col. 4:4, 2Tim. 4:11, Phm. 24).

I note you cite no passage in Ephesians portraying a short term eschatology, whereas I did so regarding the long term;
what passages do those scholars cite for doubting that trump the ones I cited for believing?
I still fail to see the significance of legions being equipped in the opposite end of Anatolia from Ephesus.

We seem to be getting off track per the OP, so I may try to get us back on the subject soon.
Click to expand...

Ephesus was the regional capital under Corbulo. As for Paul and lying, if Paul was executed in 71 and Luke was writing in 72 do you think that Luke might consider that the Romans were very serious about some issue since they killed a Roman citizen over them, and that just maybe it might be smart to downplay them?

If you want specific verses in Ephesians that most scholars recognize, very simple, Ephesians 1:1-6:24. If you cannot see what so many scholars see, then I cannot help you.

As for getting back on track, if I refer you to some of the works I have consulted on these issues, would you read them what these scholars have to say? I warn you, it is heavy on "clearly irrelevant" material, as several seminary profs have told me they would have called it before they saw my arguments.
 
rewriter said:
Ephesus was the regional capital under Corbulo. As for Paul and lying, if Paul was executed in 71 and Luke was writing in 72 do you think that Luke might consider that the Romans were very serious about some issue since they killed a Roman citizen over them, and that just maybe it might be smart to downplay them?

If you want specific verses in Ephesians that most scholars recognize, very simple, Ephesians 1:1-6:24. If you cannot see what so many scholars see, then I cannot help you.

As for getting back on track, if I refer you to some of the works I have consulted on these issues, would you read them what these scholars have to say? I warn you, it is heavy on "clearly irrelevant" material, as several seminary profs have told me they would have called it before they saw my arguments.
Click to expand...

No, I do not think Luke thought Paul was lying.
Surely scholars could cite specific parts of Ephesians indicating Paul thought Christ's return was imminent!
If those scholars are no better than the ones thinking Ephesians teaches the imminent return of Christ, then no thanks.
TTYL
 
the_seeker said:
Hm.
We can start with the problem of suffering.
Do you have solution to this problem?
Click to expand...

Fellow seeker, I hope you are rested, because I would like to know your thoughts
about what I have found/learned regarding suffering and posted/shared in #1,141.
Any comments or questions?
 
GWH said:
Well, the way some people tell it, we all begin as pigs,
Click to expand...

And they's absolutely correct.

[quoie] but conviction begins when a pig squeals/repents of disbelief and increases as it learns God's Word.[/quote}

Disagree - FAITH is the result of God's WORD, but whether you know the bible or not, His Holy Spirit can Convict of SIN, and force a decision: REPENT, and cry out under conviction for salvation, OR refuse, and walk back into death.

AFTER we're Born Again of the Spirit, and have HIM inside as a trustworthy witness, we can start to REALLY understand what the Bible says - not what :"Theologians" tell us it does.
 
Bob-Carabbio said:
And they's absolutely correct.

[quoie] but conviction begins when a pig squeals/repents of disbelief and increases as it learns God's Word.[/quote}

Disagree - FAITH is the result of God's WORD, but whether you know the bible or not, His Holy Spirit can Convict of SIN, and force a decision: REPENT, and cry out under conviction for salvation, OR refuse, and walk back into death.

AFTER we're Born Again of the Spirit, and have HIM inside as a trustworthy witness, we can start to REALLY understand what the Bible says - not what :"Theologians" tell us it does.
Click to expand...

BC, communication/semantics is tricky.
Yes, "conviction begins" = "faith is the result".
Thus, we actually agree.
And I like "REALLY" understand what the Bible MEANS, not just what it says.

Anything else?...
 
GWH said:
I completely agree that there is no one way to witness for the One Way (1Pet. 3:15), so while what I learned answered my questions,
I can only hope that those I share may help a few folks find answers that satisfied their questions and encourage them to doubt their doubts.

We seem similar and simpatico, but some on CC seem to have papal complexes and know all of the answers, some of which
differ from mine, and so I am concerned that our different answers to the kerygmatic question (Acts 16:30) could contribute
to doubt or belief that Christians don't have a good answer because there is none. Of course, there may be questions that
will not be answered fully until we go to heaven, but I have learned a lot from what GW taught.

What do you think about the answers I shared re the problems you cited?
(Discussing one at a time is fine :^)
Click to expand...

@Blue155, are you sad or just busy? I don't suppose you would like to unlimit your profile?
 
rewriter said:
The evidence from physics and cosmology indicate a creator, although the nature of said creator is unclear. The "Big Bang" implies a creation, thus a creator and the existence of this universe argues against an infinite number of universes as there would need to be an infinite number created before this specific universe, so it would never come to be. The "Fine Tuning" of this universe, where for multiple measurements a very slight change, perhaps even out at the 20th decimal, would render the universe inhospitable for life as we know it. Other small variations might have the universe fail to expand as it has but rather collapse within seconds of the initial event or else expand too rapidly for matter to form. Biology and biochemistry also suggest a deity via reviewing the incredible complexity of the cell. There are no plausible development steps. RNA and DNA might form at random in the proper conditions, but without a cell to protect them they would breakdown rapidly. DNA cannot replicate without RNA. Both DNA and RNA need to proper enzymes, and there are a sufficiently large number that it is highly improbable that they all occur by accident, something on the order of 10 to the 60th against or even higher. Godel's "proof" of God does require a theistic god, much like described in the Bible, but it includes the assumption that God would be a positive entity and that weakens it in the opinion of some people. There is reportedly an argument being developed from the paranormal that would require a theistic God using both experimental evidence and personal experiences, but I do not think it is formally finished just yet.

That should cover your first two queries, at least as best as I can in a short space. As for objective morality, games theory has weighed in on that issue and determined that there is a sound objective basis for moral behavior.

With regards to pizza, it depends on YouTube Premium APK what else is on the pizza besides pineapple.
Click to expand...
Yes i see
 
the_seeker said:
I'm an atheist / agnostic.
I am open to good arguments for God's existance. Unfortunately, that is not enough for me to become a christian.

Arguments must be posted and argued hard; why the christian God is the "real God".
So good luck and please post.
Click to expand...

Instead of an argument I would like to recommend the movie "God's Not Dead", which has a great plot weaving together
numerous subplots: a Christian college student (with a nominal Christian girlfriend) who was challenged to a debate by his atheist professor (who has a Christian girlfriend whose brother is only interested in making money and whose mother has dementia), a Muslim girl who was oppressed by her protective father, an atheist blogger who has cancer, two pastors on the way to the climactic concert with the Newsboys singing "God's Not Dead", (Willie Robertson of Duck Dynasty), Franklin Graham, etc.
 
the_seeker said:
I'm an atheist / agnostic.
I am open to good arguments for God's existance. Unfortunately, that is not enough for me to become a christian.

Arguments must be posted and argued hard; why the christian God is the "real God".
So good luck and please post.
Click to expand...

If you believe in creation, then you believe God exists;
and if you hope for resurrection, then faith in the NT God is best/most credible.
Rejoice in the Lord's love (Phil. 4:4-7) rather than fear God's just wrath (Jam. 2:19)!
 
The Seeker said:
I am open to good arguments for God's existance. Unfortunately, that is not enough for me to become a christian.

Arguments must be posted and argued hard; why the christian God is the "real God".
So good luck and please post.

There are three scientific "proofs" for God at present, but all these require is a deistic god, not the Christian god. This is a simple fact. There is also Godel's argument, which is an updated version of Anselm's, roughly God is that entity of which no greater can be conceived, but that is largely philosophical, Godel just adds in some math. But if you accept the current findings of science, the three arguments from science are hard to dismiss. The scientifically established heat death of the universe indicates a beginning, and a beginning must have some independent source that is outside the universe. The scientifically established "fine tuning" of the universe, multiple measurements that cannot deviate from their measured values by much at all, in some cases no changes are possible out to the 20th decimal point, in order for the universe as we know it to exist, thus again implying a source outside of the universe to achieve such precision. The third is the irreducible complexity of a living cell, there is a better chance of a tornado blowing through a junk yard and assembling a fully functional 747 than a single living cell appearing by random chance, which again implies a creator. But none of these creators need be the Christian god.

Now I have just recently received confirmation that an argument that I am developing does not abuse the fairly recent and obscure science I am relying on. The experiments I will be citing began in 1979 and the initial program ran for 29 years at Princeton before disbanding, but the son of one of the two initial leaders has formed a new organization that continues his mother's work, and he is my source for confirming I am not abusing the science, at least not in a brief paragraph about the argument I wish to make, and this would require a theistic god that fits the Christian understanding in most ways, all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful, plausibly also just, I have to consider that last point carefully but I think I can make that argument also.

In conclusion, hang on The Seeker, I am trying to give you what you want.
 
rewriter said:
The Seeker said:
I am open to good arguments for God's existance. Unfortunately, that is not enough for me to become a christian.

Arguments must be posted and argued hard; why the christian God is the "real God".
So good luck and please post.

There are three scientific "proofs" for God at present, but all these require is a deistic god, not the Christian god. This is a simple fact. There is also Godel's argument, which is an updated version of Anselm's, roughly God is that entity of which no greater can be conceived, but that is largely philosophical, Godel just adds in some math. But if you accept the current findings of science, the three arguments from science are hard to dismiss. The scientifically established heat death of the universe indicates a beginning, and a beginning must have some independent source that is outside the universe. The scientifically established "fine tuning" of the universe, multiple measurements that cannot deviate from their measured values by much at all, in some cases no changes are possible out to the 20th decimal point, in order for the universe as we know it to exist, thus again implying a source outside of the universe to achieve such precision. The third is the irreducible complexity of a living cell, there is a better chance of a tornado blowing through a junk yard and assembling a fully functional 747 than a single living cell appearing by random chance, which again implies a creator. But none of these creators need be the Christian god.

Now I have just recently received confirmation that an argument that I am developing does not abuse the fairly recent and obscure science I am relying on. The experiments I will be citing began in 1979 and the initial program ran for 29 years at Princeton before disbanding, but the son of one of the two initial leaders has formed a new organization that continues his mother's work, and he is my source for confirming I am not abusing the science, at least not in a brief paragraph about the argument I wish to make, and this would require a theistic god that fits the Christian understanding in most ways, all-loving, all-knowing and all-powerful, plausibly also just, I have to consider that last point carefully but I think I can make that argument also.

In conclusion, hang on The Seeker, I am trying to give you what you want.
Click to expand...

I ran across an argument for God's existence by considering photons:

Everything in existence is entirely made of photons. Protons, neutrons and electrons are photons with a magnetic flux.
Photons travel at the speed of light and thus have no time lapse. Thus, the photon may be deemed the God particle. God creates the time-space continuum and matter via the photon's magnetic field. Thoughts are quadrillions of photons flowing. Photosynthesis is really "photonsticktothis". Thanks be to God for photons.

However, AI says matter (electrons and quarks) is primarily composed of fermions,
while photons are the quantum of electromagnetic fields--whatever that means.
:unsure:
 
GWH said:
I ran across an argument for God's existence by considering photons:

Everything in existence is entirely made of photons. Protons, neutrons and electrons are photons with a magnetic flux.
Photons travel at the speed of light and thus have no time lapse. Thus, the photon may be deemed the God particle. God creates the time-space continuum and matter via the photon's magnetic field. Thoughts are quadrillions of photons flowing. Photosynthesis is really "photonsticktothis". Thanks be to God for photons.

However, AI says matter (electrons and quarks) is primarily composed of fermions,
while photons are the quantum of electromagnetic fields--whatever that means.
:unsure:
Click to expand...

One key point in quantum physics is that electrons can only move in specific, very small units of energy. To increase their energy, they must absorb a photon, a massless unit of elector-magnetic energy and to lose energy they must emit a photon. If instead of this very small change in energy being the minimum change (a quanta of energy, whence quantum physics) that can occur the electrons instead just gradually lost energy, as common sense would imply, the electron could just gradually collapse into the nucleus of its atom, but instead due the restrictions on loss of energy, there is a minimum energy that an electron will always have.

Now photons, depending on how one detects them, can look like a specific particle or like a wave, and if like a wave it can be shorter or longer. Microwaves are short wavelengths and more concentrated energy, ultraviolet light is getting longer, blue light is longer still, red light is the longest wavelength we can see, then comes infrared and on into longer wavelengths, think static on the radio. The length of the wavelength can be used to determine how far back in time the detected wave began. The longest ones detected are from the Big Bang.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back