Physical Force Does Not Exist
A recent argument between me and James goes something like this. If one denies god’s existence on the basis of a lack of empirical evidence then by application of the same logic they must deny the existence of other entities that lack empirical evidence. The entity that I like to bring up is force. Force can not be directly perceived. One can not collect force and put into a bucket just like one can not collect and put god into a bucket.
If failure to empirically perceive God justifies denying the divine’s existence then one is equally justified in denying the existence of physical concepts like force. One could also deny other concepts like evolution or Le Chatlier’s principle.
February 12th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Empirical means that you can observe its effects. Not that you can collect it and put it in a bucket. (I’ll have more for this later)
February 12th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Of course those things are linguistic constructs. The relevant question is whether the things they are constructed to represent get cashed out in empirical terms. Force exists in as much as the equations relating to force accurately predict what happens- force isn’t an entit, it’s a word that describbes a type of interaction between entities, and that type of interaction can be empirically verified. Similarly, evolution is a description of what physical entities do within a system that has reproduction, inheritance, and selection. Saying that ‘evolution’ doesnn’t exist is like saying ‘talking’ or ‘falling’ doesn’t exist.
God has two problems that force or evolution don’t have: 1. It IS (in most conceptions) an entity, rather than a description of a process, and therefore we SHOULD be able to ‘put it in a bucket’. 2. We don’t have empirical verification of any claims related to it (that can’t be accounted for as well or better by other theories).
February 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
God is invariably used as a description to characterize interactions between entities. For example God has often times been used to explain the actions one nation does to another.
Under this analysis God enjoys the same status as force.
As to your second point.
1. Its unclear what the difference between ‘entity’ and ‘description’ is. I should think that ‘entity’ is a shorthand for a description of something that exists. One might be inclined to argue this is simply a matter of linguists and that we should focus on the metaphysics. Of course the problem with the metaphysics argument is that force fails to exist in this analysis. This of course is the point you grant me in your first paragraph. With the exception that use the term ‘god’ as opposed to ‘force’.
2. We have plenty of empirical verification of God’s existence provided that verification is defined as loosely as the requirements of force require. Again taking into consideration your first paragraph, force does not generate empirical evidence alone. It requires other things interacting from which it’s meaning can be derived. Well then the meaning of God is the interaction of man and his existence in the world.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
But that is emphatically NOT the definition of God. Essentially all definitions of god depict real entities, which talk to people and perform miracles and smite entirre cities. Zeuss turning into a swan and having sex with people, the christian god destroying the cities of Soddom and Gomorrah and turning Lott’s wife into a pillar of salt, the jewish god parting the red sea for Moses, the Muslim god speaking to Mohammed- these are not descriptions of ‘the interaction of man and his existence in the world,’ they are references to real, living, thinking beings, with volition and powers, who do things on the earth and in the heavens. They are in no way a linguistic short-hand describing a process.
Yes you can re-define the word ‘god’ to mean something similar to the word ‘force’, but then you’re not talking about God anymore, you’re just using the same word with a different meaning.
February 13th, 2008 at 1:15 am
So then you would deny God is defined as the entity that places man in this world. I think you might want to consult some religious folk because the last time I spoke with ALL of them they were very clear that God is the reason man is here on this earth.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:37 am
So you’re saying that if you told your religious friends ‘God is the deterministic process of evolution on the planet earth, with no supernatural or intelligent guiding hand or design.’, they would all agree with you?
February 13th, 2008 at 2:40 am
Your just going back to the linguistic argument which you already concede to me. Force only exists as linguistic form to characterize the interaction between other things. God exists as the linguistic form to characterize man’s relationship to the universe.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
February 13th, 2008 at 10:20 am
It looks like the real answer to this argument is that, if you redefine god, steve is correct. Prior to redefining god, there is not empirical evidence that god exists, god being some cohesive entity with intelligence and direction, and maybe a “plan”.
It would seem that steve mearly means the idea of god, which has empirical evidence to support its existence, and neither it nor force can be put in a bucket, though they are real.
On a side note: Steve, this non-obvious redefinition is why a number(most) of people wont want to have this argument with you. Your redefinition of god is not in you’re opening statements about the argument, and is hard to pull out of you.
February 13th, 2008 at 11:35 am
First of all arguing that god is defined as the force(yeah I used that word) that made the universe is anything but non obvious. Secondly, you guys are the ones that have added the ancillary definitions to god which you then, claim to have shown to not exist. Good work.
This argument is very much alive. If force does not exist but simply characterize the interactions of things then god does not exist but characterize man to the universe.
This outcome bothers both of you because its argues that force does not exist. But you want force to exist. You want it to be an actual entity in the universe. The problem is that the criteria by which you allow it entry into the world is equally applicable to divine beings. The problem is that you don’t want gods to exist so you deny the same criteria you give to force when you talk of god.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
You’ve missed the point. You could argue that god is the force that defined the universe. But that doesnt sound much like, “the things which make the physics phenomenon of force real can be applied to god, and used to prove or disprove the existence of both.”
We’re going by the common definition of words,
You cant just say “here is what I think this is,
I’m not going to bother to reconcile that with what the rest of the world says this word means., so therefore my argument is valid in all senses, I win.”
I see you pushing this towards a disagreement about the common
definition of god. Again, from the people I’ve met they disagree with your definition. Again, if you constrain it from god to the idea of god, i agree with the argument.
So you’re left either saying, you mean the idea of god, or arguing that god means something other than what darwin and i think.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Holy Beshnikes. The working definition I have given is much more applicable to god beyond any specific group. Darwin cited specific traits different religion’s ascribe to god. However all of them would certainly be okay, with some extensive explanation, with defining god as the ‘term’ for man’s interaction with the universe. Seems to be me that many religions would never be okay with God gave moses the power to separate the red sea.
This really is silly.
However, lets just assume my definition is not typical of those that believe in god’s existence. You still have the problem of showing why I can’t dismiss force’s existence while being allowed to dismiss god’s existence in this analysis. Force is the shorthand for the interaction between entities in the exact same way that God is an interaction between entities. Denying one certainly seems to imply that the other can be denied.
Force is the interaction between physical entities
God is the interaction between physical entities.
On what grounds do you retain the first statement by disregard the second statement. Or do you embrace the notion that God is the interaction between physical entities and the universe?
February 13th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Because that’s not the common definition of God. Ask some religious people and see if they agree to that definition.
By your logic, you could just say:
‘Table is the interactions between physical entities’
and have it be as meaningful as your statement about god.