the god related discussions have been in vicious cycle for so long now and have achieved nothing. I am trying to go back in time ......... so who was the first one to have asked this question? polscie.
Good question.. I admire you for having submitted such an imposing and thought provoking problem for all to consider.
if mankind cannot produce an answer to this question I don't think any god related topics is worth discussing, for it could fail producing relevant answers that we have been seeking for. I believe this is a pre-requisite question before going any further in discussing god. polscie
On the same line of logic, the same could be said for the basic elements found on the periodic table.... carbon, hydrogen, oxygen... who was the person who first coined those terms? Without a relevant answer, there is no need to go any further with a discussion on science. Did that person just make up the tags, labels, titles, or did he/she find some specimen of each that were clearly labeled by its' manufacturer?
Nobody is going to really know as it was likely to have been before recorded history (and unlikely to be in the scope of the recorded bits anyway). There is a logical idea of how the concept of gods developed, with early man seeking explanations for things he didn't understand (e.g. weather, fire, oceans, mountains) and anthropomorphising them. Assuming that was the case, it seems perfectly possible that there were people who questioned those ideas at the time. The term atheism was coined by the ancient Greeks so the idea of questioning the existence of gods was recognised at that point (and so likely existed for some time before). To be honest, I'm not sure how knowing this would be a pre-requisite to discussing gods though.
God, in the sense of there being only one overarching deity, didn't even exist until about 3,500 years ago, maybe less. Civilization is about twice as old as God.
And your point is WHAT? Scientists are dumber than what is to be expected? Atoms have been around since the creation/big bang (6000 years to Billions of years), yet scientists have just recently learned to work within the atomic theory? How slow can a dedicated group be?
true. but these periodic table........carbon............. hydrogen.........in the process of mans existence is proven to be true and is concrete. but for the sake of the future.........this "God" is never true. in every sec. of our existence, the appearance of "God" in the daily lives equation is questionable. so it is vital that we trace how did this question "do you believe in god" arise in the society polscie
In the lives of many millions of people, God has also proven His existence and has been found to be true and concrete. Only in your mind and in the minds of those who choose to separate their own being from God. It is a matter of personal choice. Likewise, it is vital to me why so many would choose to listen to some other man who said this substance is carbon and this substance that I cannot see is hydrogen and this substance that I cannot see is oxygen and this substance that I cannot see is helium,,,, etc... Your answer also does not directly address who it was that first coined those names/labels/tags for those items mentioned. Do you know who it was?
Would one of the wannabe scientists on this forum please jump in and explain where the names of the various elements on the periodic table came from? Were those names/labels/tags/descriptors purely imaginative or did the finders of those elements also find a name/label/tag/descriptor attached to each one so that they would KNOW what to call that/those particular elements?
You know folks this is a real disappointment to me. Here I thought we had a bunch of really educated people on this forum who KNOW a lot about science, but as it turns out, it seems that none of them can answer that/those relatively simple question/s about the names on the periodic table and the numbers related to those names. What is happening with the local scientific community on this forum? I was able to find this: http://www.meta-synthesis.com/webbook/30_timeline/timeline.html It was somewhat helpful... but not quite the detail that I was hoping to get.
Since we're apparently able to live with the quirk of godbelief, it's not really a vital question. But it's a very interesting one. Psychology of religion is a discipline that has grown steadily since early last century. Asking the question in this context is no different than asking who first got to the degree of self-awareness that he required justification of thoughts and behavior that made no sense to him.
And folks, above is another example of a wannabe scientist who refuses to address the question that was presented regarding the names of those items on the periodic table.
Still no qualified pseudoscientists on board that are willing to tackle those questions pertaining to the names on the periodic table and the associated numbers? Amazing. I am beginning to believe that all those pseudoscientists or wannabe scientists are actually afraid to face the truth that Chemogenesis reveals too much truth and makes them look the fool. When it is seen through the documentation on Chemogenesis that the whole basket of elements is nothing more than the imaginative ramblings of people who were attempting to impress other people with NUMEROLOGY. A mystic practice.
I suspect nobody is responding because everyone believes you're trolling rather than expressing any real interest in the subject. It's not as if you couldn't find the answers to your questions if you really cared. I'm not a physicist or chemist, but for what it's worth, I believe the names of the elements were generally coined by the people who first discovered them (which could be before they were recognised as elements) based on their properties or common uses, places or people who discovered them. I don't see how the actual names are especially important. They means nothing more about the nature of the elements as us naming planets and stars does to them. The numbers are based on an element's fundamental properties (number of neutrons, protons and electrons in an atom). The ongoing questions about exactly how these are structured within an atom doesn't affect the numbers.
As pertaining to the names... you are correct in suggesting that the names are irrelevant. On the other hand, the numbers are very relevant and does create a great concern within me. Why? As the article I linked and provided shows, the original numbers are arbitrary, and that arbitrariness continues to be the operational standard to this day. The article also points out through its sub-links that the numbering system is a form of 'numerology' which is a mystical practice of religious groups in the past. As for the suggestion that I am trolling. Negative. As can be seen in this response, I am interested in knowing why scientists of today, who reject the teachings of spirituality, will use pagan forms of mysticism in their daily practices.
I'm not clear which numbering you're suggesting is arbitrary. The only relevant numbering I'm aware of are atomic mass and atomic number, both of which are based on physical properties of an element.
In the Lewis Theory dealing with the number of electrons and protons involved in the atomic structure, the numbers are referred to, consistently, as being "magic numbers". Without any explanation as to their existence other than the suggestion that hydrogen be the lightest of those elements with a base count of 1. The 'magic numbers' are also preferred because of their arbitrary nature. That arbitrary nature has afforded the scientists to manipulate their patterns in such a way as to make them appear as correct. At one point in the discussion regarding the Lewis Theory, the entire Lewis Theory is referred to as being "Numerology" (with a link that provides the definition associated with the use of that term in that field). If you read the article, the article speaks volumes as to how the scientific community are actually stage magicians using old religious systems that dealt with numbers.
Further: "The Bohr model is a primitive model of the hydrogen atom. As a theory, it can be derived as a first-order approximation of the hydrogen atom using the broader and much more accurate quantum mechanics, and thus may be considered to be an obsolete scientific theory. However, because of its simplicity, and its correct results for selected systems (see below for application), the Bohr model is still commonly taught to introduce students to quantum mechanics, before moving on to the more accurate but more complex valence shell atom. A related model was originally proposed by Arthur Erich Haas in 1910, but was rejected. The quantum theory of the period between Planck's discovery of the quantum (1900) and the advent of a full-blown quantum mechanics (1925) is often referred to as the old quantum theory." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model All these things are still classed as 'theory' even though some are widely accepted by academia and the scientific community. PROOF of any of these theories, with regard to the actual number of electrons and protons within an atom have not been found, observed, recorded, or otherwise tested by any means other than numbers. Numbers which is admitted being used in a Numerologistic manner.
I agree that we cannot produce name/s. The idea of the question "who" is in the context of the present time, but I really believe that long before the existence of Moses and Jesus Christ this question "do you believe in God?" was in the air already during the prime existence of Man without any respective names. I believe 'twas a brilliant move whoever made the term atheist, this serves as a strong argument favouring the claim of the existence of "GOD". Because of this believer and this atheist all of the on going god related arguments are found in a vicious non producing cycle, hence giving a slight edge that god exists. Going back in time is essential and the concept of Who asked the question first? (pre requisite) could play a pivotal role in turning the table around in order to favour the claim that god does not exist. polscie
I should know better than to do this as I'm sure you'll simply misinterpret these things and employ one or two of your escape routes (I'm guessing either "it's only opinion" or "your logic doesn't apply to me", or both). But anyhow, purely for the record ... Lewis theory relates to quantum mechanics as Newtonian gravitation relates to Einsteinian general relativy. Newton's laws of universal gravitation do not explain gravity. They magically describe the results of gravity as a function of mass. Einstein's theory of gravitation, however, is about the gravitational forces themselves. It describes gravity as a function of momentum in space-time. Likewise, the Lewis model does not explain nuclear forces. It magically describes the results of chemical bonding. That's because it's about chemical reactivity and NOT about nuclear forces. For the latter, you must go to quantum mechanics. You've simply stumpled upon the boundaries between classical and modern theory that arose with general relativity and quantum mechanics, respectively. It does not mean that Newtonian gravity and the Lewis model are no longer applicable. They work within their respective fields with the same precision as always.
I don't believe in anything that can't be proven. So, no, i don't believe in God. That's not to say the sky fairy doesn't exist. But until it is proven, i'll remain sceptical.
