Light is photons, which are emitted from atoms. Again, light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

These are sub atomic particles which make up atoms. I don't see your point.


I will also add that I am not a scientist, so my word on these things are not to be taken as concrete. But I think I understand them enough to answer a question like this.

Okay, so far you've dismissed the existence of gravity, evil, and the idea that 1+1=2, as being moot or out of context as to your question, "Name something that exists...that isn't comprised of atomic particles."

In the premise in your OP you state that:

Clearly there are many things that exist, that don't take the place of matter or energy as listed above. But it seems that you're begging the question here.

When you say "exist", you are narrowly defining that as the class of things which are comprised of matter or energy. But then you ask us to name something that "exists" that isn't comprised of matter or energy?

I guess I'm just really confused by this whole topic. In any normal conversation, if you were asked, "Does light/evil/gravity exist?" the answer is clearly yes, so you're going to have to give us your true definition of what you mean by "exist" if you intend to dismiss the existence of evil or gravity as out of context.

I too am not a scientist, so I don't know what it means to be emitted from an atom...but if photons are emitted from atoms, does that necessarily mean that they themselves are comprised of atoms? A gun "emits" bullets, but bullets aren't made up of guns.


I was just saying that based on your title and subsequent posts. You seemed to imply that atoms were the fundamental particle of matter and everything had to thusly be made of atoms. But a quark isn't itself made up of atoms, nor is a proton, so I was just pointing that out jokingly (as you can see by the smiley), not as a real point.

Light is physical, surely? I mean, it bounces off objects and stimulates nerve receptors in our eyes, right? 'Evil' is a concept; they reside in brains, which for me takes care of 1 + 1 = 2 also. I don't see anything about gravity which in principle offers problems magnetism doesn't (or at least didn't 200 years ago). As with light, I'm not wowed by the notion of something that clearly interacts with things we know to be physical not being physical also.

Thread needs more scientists IMO. A few well-versed philosophers wouldn't go amiss either (and how often do you get to honestly say that?)

This does seem to be the issue. Non-physicalists have a problem in that anything new will presumably be defined as simply a new form of matter. But that problem goes away if you can properly define the non-physical instead of grasping for an example.

From Wikipedia:
In physics, a photon is an elementary particle, the quantum of the electromagnetic interaction and the basic unit of light and all other forms of electromagnetic radiation. It is also the force carrier for the electromagnetic force. The effects of this force are easily observable at both the microscopic and macroscopic level, because the photon has no rest mass; this allows for interactions at long distances. Like all elementary particles, photons are currently best explained by quantum mechanics and will exhibit wave–particle duality, exhibiting properties of both waves and particles. For example, a single photon may be refracted by a lens or exhibit wave interference with itself, but also act as a particle giving a definite result when quantitative momentum (quantized angular momentum) is measured.
---------
Other sites I just read indicate photons are generally regarded as massless since they are never at rest, but they do have momentum.

It does have energy, though, no?

True, but a bullet requires a gun to be effective. So are you saying that god requires an atom and/or that atoms preceded god?


I was always aware that atoms are comprised of particles. But that all "things" are comprised of atoms. You are intentionally taking the OP out of context by desperately trying to come up with intangibles like evil, emotions, light (which was a terrible example btw), and gravity to confuse the issue.

God is supposed to be a being... An entity... I'm saying that beings and entities are comprised of atoms. Stick to that or go away. It's clear that you're just trying to confuse the original question by reaching for other examples to erect a strawman.

To clarify, what are you calling a thing, or thing per se, such that a universal physical force does not qualify?

Oops.

Not an oops on my part, though hopefully this will be the helpful hint OP needs to crawl out of his shell and put something substantial on the table.

Supposed by whom, atheists and Sunday School children? A more sophisticated theist would describe God as 'the ground of being' or 'being itself', not as 'a' being. So defining God as a being or an entity would be the strawman in the room.

It is energy

From what I've read this thread is exploding with a bazillion different concepts, and people arguing completely different things.
What Lestat is asking, IMHO, is what is God in the physical universe i.e. light, matter, energy, time, and space.
These things are not all made up of energy (and matter, which IS energy.) Time and space are "containers" for energy. "Gravity" is a force, like friction, electromagnetism, etc., which aren't "composed" of energy, their merely an interaction between various energies, e.g. gravity would be a relation between gravitational potential energy and matter. Also things like "emotions," aren't best understood as physical things i.e. energy, but more in the realm of concepts, like forces.

In this mind, you are asking whether God exists as a THING i.e. energy.
But this contradicts Christian teaching which necessarily requires God creates energy etc.
Because of this "spirit" is a concept by which we have no understanding other than in God.
This does not mean it can not exist in our universe, as our universe is "everything."

God created, i.e. was the cause of, the physical universe of space, matter, energy etc and so is not "in" it.

So how can he affect it...
I think you make a mistake by saying he is not a part of it.

While I can't describe the mechanism in this case, I disagree with your implication that entities must be of the same kind to have a causal relationship.

So problem solved.

I'm not saying their of the same kind; i'm saying they must be able to interact. To be able to interact they must be able to join causal chains; to do this, they must be in the same universe

Heh. Oops again? OP provides 'something substantial' in the form of the physical universe. The only serious counterexample ITT is 'spirit' and that hasn't been defined. The ball is not in Lestat's court.

Since the universe of space, matter, energy etc was caused to exist in the first place by God, is it not obviously that there can be an ongoing causal relationship?

I don't think its the "biggest" problem. I think their are big problems with this "spirit" but I think it is hard to prove it is impossible. Mainly in that in every way we can conceive of energy interacting or being caused, we know there is some other potential or real energy acting with it.
I think Newtonian maths etc. show very well this. "spirit" is so undefined its kinda ridiculous, but it is unknowable.

Thereby you have changed your position. they are in the same universe.

I think you will find great trouble convincing anyone that this spirit can interact in any way with energy without being energy. To convince someone it exists you must convince someone how it does so. You can't as you agree God is not made of energy, and you've said you've got no way of explaining how

God is not part of the universe He created. At least not as I am using these terms. To suggest otherwise would involve circular causality.

Okay, I can't explain how God interacts with the matter and energy He invented. This does not make your assertion of its impossibility any less arbitrary.

The force carrier particle for gravity is the graviton. Nobody has ever seen one(and probably no one ever will in your lifetime) but it is predicted by the standard model.

Universe would be "everything" in my terms, but i see what you mean



I know. I never said he did. Your claim is baseless is all i'm saying; you can't show how God exists as he exists in ways we cannot know by your own definition. You have to believe in him in some other way