02Z3Other

Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist

1.0 Atom

Chemists and physicists have never seen an atom, yet they use this word to designate a

shape

. They

postulate the atom

a hypothetical entity that comprises part of the initial scene of a theory. The atom is

assumption

, a proposal for the

fundamental constituents of matter. The

prosecutor

intends to explain

the

workings of the Universe relying on this

hypothesis. The only requirement for the atom to qualify as an

object is for the prosecutor to be able to

illustrate

her piece

of mind for the jury (i.e., shape).

Note that this

renders immaterial whether the atom is artificial, whether it is a faithful reflection of reality,

whether we can

touch, see, or test it, or whether we

believe

in it. There is no way to ‘test’ an atom other

than

for the

prosecutor to illustrate

it. The skeptic’s task is to demonstrate that a sphere – if this is what

the

prosecutor

exhibited at hypothesis – cannot be

reconciled with the

theory

that follows, or to show

that the

proposal

contradicts observation.

2.0

Air / gas

he word

air

also forms part of a hypothesis. Air is an arbitrary name we assigned to a gas that

envelopes

the Earth like a

shell. As a

concept

, air is one category among gases. Non-air gases include

hydrogen,

phosphine, and

. Air qualifies

as an

object

only if the artist draws a sphere enveloping the

Earth,

points

to it, and calls it air

(

Fig. 1

)

does not yet

understand

that air is a gas, that it is made of

atoms,

or that

we breathe it. All that he

visualizes

for the moment is a finite

‘something’ surrounding a

sphere.

When we

introduce

the word

air

as a

exhibit

, we tacitly treat this gas as a continuous entity. We apply

the

word

air

to a

cloud of gas taken as a whole rather than as the aggregate of its individual constituents

(atoms).

All

objects in Science are made of a single piece. T

prosecutor

can later describe that air is

made

of tiny molecules, in

which case he is now talking about the

concept

air.

Air is a medium

(i.e., thing,

object,

material, physical)

because,

irrespective of our ability to see it, we

can

synthesize it in a single

frame and

designate

it with a single word. Air is the

name we give to a finite bundle of gas.

Considered in its entirety this gas has

shape on its own; there is no need to introduce extrinsic objects

into

the picture. Note, again, that whether

we can see air (proof/experiment) is immaterial to its use as a

hypothesis

A hypothesis necessarily

precedes a

theory

and a theory necessarily precedes a

proof

. The

only requirement for a

valid exhibit

shape. All mass nouns qualify as objects in this sense. We point to

gold bar and call it

gold

, and we

point

to a stick of

butter

and call it

butter

The ET does not yet know

whether gold or butter is made of simpler parts

and he is not comparing the designated object with

anything else for the moment. He's just trying to learn a word.

Are air, wind, fire, ocean, and
gases objects or concepts?

3.0 Wind

n the other hand, we cannot draw or take a picture of

wind

. Unlike atom and air, which have shape

under particular

circumstances, wind always remains a

dynamic

concept.

Atoms and air are

static

‘concepts’ invented by man (words)

that, upon illustration,

become

objects for the purposes of

the

presentation

Wind does not refer to an object the

prosecutor can illustrate

or point to

In order to

understand the meaning of the word wind, we must watch a movie.

The wind is not a hypothesis, but

theory, a name given to an explanation for

how most humans believe atoms and

air

behave

The devil’s advocate may argue that a painter can sketch a few short, parallel curves on a picture of

the

sky to simulate

the wind. Surely even children will identify the illustration as the wind.

This argument actually highlights how deceiving the word

wind

really is. The jury gets the misleading

impression that

the prosecutor is referring to a physical medium when what we have before us is a

verb. Whether the wind is an object,

a hypothesis, or a theory is not an epistemological issue

, but a

matter of definition. We think of wind as moving air.

Wind is the flow of air."

[

]

If you ever manage to take a snapshot of wind what will show up on the photo is air.

hildren identify

three curves with

the wind because they have a priori knowledge of the wind. The lines

stealthily

represent motion, a situation that is not

readily discern

ble. The juror fills in the blanks by

resorting to

experience.

Objectively, t

he painting is nothing but a

collage of images of air. The painter superpose

three frames of a film onto a still picture and prays that the juror

with

prior experience

‘understands’

that

these lines represent

dynamic air

(

Fig.

)

. The definitions of ocean, forest, or air

make no provision

for

motion. The

definitions

of current, orbit, and wind do. Air is what something is. Wind is what

something

does. Wind

always

remains a movie.

When a tornado blows away the barn, what actually

came in

contact

with

the wood was air and ultimately

atoms. Any cross-section of the movie of wind

– a single

frame of the

film – is

called air. Wind is nothing but

traveling air.

Perhaps children

read

more into the

picture than is there and

understand

that the three lines represent a

wind

he ET only

sees three

curved

lines.

Fig. 1 The shape of air

Fig. 2

Aeolus: God of the Wind

Air

Fire and

ocean

These arguments can be extended to any dispute involving objects and concepts. For instance, the

word

fire

denotes a

process rather than a thing, a movie as opposed to a photograph. A cross-section

snapshot of fire is called

flame

. Fire is

dynamic whereas flame is conceptually static.

The word

ield

is more closely related to fire than it is to flame, but actually neither word serves as an

analogy. Theorists have

made the word

field

both static and dynamic. They point to a still image of

Jupiter’s magnetosphere and call it

field

. Then, they

show you a movie of the magnetosphere keeping

the

solar wind at bay and also call it

field

. Thus, when astronomers depict the

shape of the magnetic field

they

use a notion comparable to

flame

, and when they explain the origin or an interaction of a field

they

rely on

the notion of

fire

. The word

field

is simultaneously an object and a process, a noun and a verb.

This

accounts for its

explain-it-all power and usefulness to mathematical physicists.

Air qualifies as a physical object if
we treat this gas as a single
entity, point to it and name it: air.
The ET visualizes what we are
pointing to and now associates
the word 'air' with the blue ring in
the picture. Only up to this point
is air an object. As soon as the
prosecutor describes air (e.g.,
made of molecules) or uses it to
explain a theory, he summarily
converts the word air into a
concept.

Fig. 4

The word ocean qualifies as an
object when you point and say
the word. If ocean is compared
against river or requires that it
have waves, the word ocean is
now treated as a concept.

Fig. 3

Fire and smoke may have shape
and travel upwards (against
gravity), but this doesn't make
them objects. Smoke consists of
a bunch of particles, but both
fire and smoke fail as objects
because they are intrinsically
dynamic.