martillo

That has sense. Let me think in what could a deistic "God" intervene in the Universe without violating any physics' law...

Referring to: 1. That is not how science works. Your lack of understanding of the way science works may be the reason for your discontent with it. 2. The main reasons gods (or any other form of magic) are excluded from science are (a) a lack of evidence and (b) they are not subject to rational enquiry - after all "god" can be used to answer absolutely any question: Q: Why are people good? A: God; Q: Why are people evil? A: God Q: Why is the universe suitable for life? A: God Q: Why are people killed by natural disaster and disease? A: God After all, he moves in mysterious ways. On the other hand, science assumes (it has to assume) that the world acts in predictable and repeatable ways. Luckily, that seems to usually be the case, which is why science works. (And, probably, the reason why the universe exists.) If the universe worked according to the capricious whims of a deity, then science would have a much harder time explaining anything. I think it all relies in which kind of "God" we are referring to. Any of those assertions corresponds to the deistic concept of "God" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

I appreciate your comment. Glad to not be the unique one thinking in that direction. The first step to solve a problem is to recognize it exists. Even knowing we could not have the final solution to it we must continue on the way I think. May be as a Morpheus giving skill tools for some posible Neo (Matrix remember?) anywhere I think. We know the problem exists and it affects everybody. We cannot give up in trying to make our part in solving it even if the way is frustrating sometimes. From my point of view it demands high rationalism in Physics and Metaphysics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationalism) where I find good inspiration in Descartes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/René_Descartes). Just tell me if you want to talk about something. May be we could exchange ideas. You said you have your own problem in that direction, may be I could help in something. You can even message me in the profile if you would prefer.

I guess you find logical for life be as it is as I saw scientific documentary telling how pretty adjusted are Universe's physics parameters for life, this life with all that "kind of deseases, calamities, catastrophes and tragedies...". I find that simply resignation for not having even idea of a possible solution and so no hope. As reality gives no hope better is to show things in a pretty way and sustain "la vita e bella", isn't it?. Sorry I (and may be those other ones) can't be so hypocrite.

No, no because lack of knowledge. My consideration of a "God" comes from what I wrote in the following page I posted some posts above. I repeat it here because seems you missed it:

And may be yet some other things must be proved to prove some kind of "God" for real but that's no reason to negate the possibility. The possibility of a deistic God should be maintained open until demonstrated false I think. Lack of evidence does not mean it doesn't exist.

Thanks for the data. I think it could be related about how much powerful a "Universal computing system" would be. Of course that computing system would be in a scale not even imaginable by we humans but this must not be a constraint for it to be possible.

The religious God, not the deistic concept of God which is pure rational I think (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) and for which I do not understand why Science not maintain a possibility open since as there's no empirical evidence for it is also true that cannot be rigorously proven to not exist. You may ask why to do so? I would answer with the following page:

I don't get it. In which way I could be being "less than dishonest" on what??? Please clarify.

Yes, seems you missed my last post where I asked for:

We didn't see QED at the course or I missed... Anyway, what you have to say about a question I rised in other forum:

Electrical Engineering at Unicamp University - Brasil (in the four best of latinamerica). From "Virtual particles" at Wikipedia:

I don't think that way. For "I wonder which would be more strange..." I meant that for me much more strange than "action at a distance forces" do are experimentally undetectable "virtual particles" as "force carriers". For me "action at a distance forces" is something "natural" if we assume some "Universal computing system" running the Physics' laws over the elementary particles. May be it is that way due to my career in Engineering I can admit. Note that if Science not tolerate any "God" behind it could sustain that the "Universal computing system" surges spontaneously some way...

Well, actually it was my mistake, someone in other forum talked about photons as "force carriers" leaving me with a serious misunderstanding so I deleted the content of the post. So, experimentally undetectable "virtual particles" in spite of "action at a distance" concept... I wonder which would be more strange...

Edited post to avoid misunderstandings...

Handy Andy wrote: I don't consider me losing. I just gave my thanks for all posted opinions in the thread even if all were disagreeing with my proposition on the OP. I appreciate all criticism but I didn't say I changed my mind or abandoned my idea. Is just that I could perceive that I would get no constructive income and so it doesn't worth continue the discussion. By the way I don't think in a "Omnipresent Deist god" as some "electromagnetic foam" as you seem to say I do. The "God" I think does not have omnipresence nor omniscience nor omnipotence for instance. It is deistic, it had the capability to create and run this Universe we live developing the "Universal Supra-computer" that runs the physics laws over all the particles created in it. Of course he knew the kind of worlds and living beings that physics and particles would produce. But it doesn't worth to discuss anymore.

Well, I see nobody agree with my proposition presented in the OP of the thread. I consider the forum as a good representation of the scientific community and so I take all comments as a very probable response of the community to that proposition and that is at the end what I was looking for. My thanks for that even getting disagreement.

We and everything existing in this our Universe would be some software entity of some "program" running in a "Supra-computer". Think we would be some virtual beings in a very sophisticated virtual "3D game". Our "God" would be an intelligence that have have created the program and have run it. I don't know which kind of "computer" would be, if a discrete one or analogue one or "quantum" one, etc.

May be that our Universe runs in a "Universal Supra-computer"... The proposition of a deistic creator God would belong to Metaphysics isn't it?

Yes, we could be leaved to that recursive questioning. The interesting point is that the question of how could be the origin of our Universe have the proper answer in that happened in a "Universal-Computer" when the "Superior Intelligence" decided. But of course rise the questions of how that intelligence born and how would be the beginning of everything.

If you create some Universe in some computer you will be the God of such Universe.

May be you are referring to "force carriers" in subatomic particles. I never heard about them explaining the magnetic force between common piece of magnets neither in the electrostatic attraction/repulsion of charged spheres in our "macro" world. By the way, for me "Occam's razor" is not any Physics' principle or law and cannot be used to validate or not any proposition in Physics..

Basic particles like electrons and protons interact with other ones through electric force (Coulomb's law) and magnetic force (Lorentz force) acting at any distance between them without "touching". May be you could google for "action at a distance force".

The Electric and Magnetic Forces are undoubtedly “action at a distance” forces what cannot be denied. This means that a “Physics System” would exist “running” the Physics Laws on the elementary particles. This leaves us to think in a mathematically based Universe that would “run” in some kind of “Universal Supra-computer”. There's no other way possible! The proof of the existence of a deistic "God" follows quite obviously: Some kind of "Superior Intelligence" must have 1) built the “Universal Supra-computer” machine, 2) programmed the Physics Laws in the machine and 3) setted the numerical values of the parameters of the Physics Laws. That "Superior Intelligence" can be called the "God" of the Universe in its deistic conceptualization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism).

Totally agree.