All things organic harbour energy, Louise, whether living or dead. Petroleum and coal is the stored energy of unfathomable quadrillions of long dead life forms accumulated over hundreds of millions of years. When burned these fuels release their stored energy in the forms of heat and light and motion and they are in the process consumed forever. Energy dissipates according to the same physical laws that dictate that it can be neither created nor destroyed, returning it to the cosmos from whence it came.
I agree with this conceptually . . . but would add the following . . .
"Things" don't just "harbour" energy, organic or otherwise. After stripping myself of belief in WT doctrines, I went back to my roots in science. When attempting to understand the physical world one has little choice but to assemble the known facts (not theories) regarding the very "building blocks" of the physical world itself. Once again, persuing this course demands a fundemental understanding of nuclear physics . . . and the facts as we know them.
Science, in the search for the makeup of matter, has yet to find the basic "particle' out of which the physical world is constructed. Rather, what has been found is "energy" . . . nothing more. Each time a "particle" is identified, it itself has been found to be comprised of smaller components. The physical representation these components manifest is more a result of the energy they possess and the interaction of that energy rather than the components themselves. This has been true through the discovery of the "atom"and then the sub-atomic particles. Now even sub-atomic "particles have been found to possess "components" once again manifesting themselves primarily through the interaction of the energy they possess, to give themselves a physical "nature".
So what are the scientific facts as they stand today? . . . The physical world is made up of energy . . . nothing more. Energy presenting itself in such a way as to be "physical" . . . interpreted as such by humans, through the five senses. (bear with me here)
It is also scientific fact that energy is not destroyed but transforms from one form of presentation to another. It's easy to see how "matter" and energy interact so easily. The fact is (as science can prove to date) . . . matter is simply energy in a discernable form.
The other scientific fact regarding energy is that it must have a source . . . a previous form . . . it cannot arise from nothing.
When we take the scientific facts as a whole . . . the "source" of all energy, and thus the physical world . . . is the only scientific concept of "God"
Beyond that we can prove or disprove nothing. God is the source . . . because there must be one. But there is nothing else to elaborate on as to "it's" true nature or if "it" even has a purpose . . . a purpose that is scientifically provable. Under this definition of "god" . . . atheism is unscientific. But as with atheism . . . all religious belief beyond the scientific is man-made conjecture also.
However . . . If an atheists claim is that "there is no source" . . . that is simply unscientific . . . even Albert Einstein recognised that.
Scientifically, there is still a tremendous allowance required for the "unknown" . . . but to believe in the existence of a deity (a source) is not unscientific in itself.
Additionally, there may be much more to the complete "spectrum" of energy than has been discovered . . .
Recent research has shown the human brain is much more than electrochemical . . . it is also electromagnetic and therefore has the possibility of interacting directly with external electromagnetic influences (not through the five senses). Also, a new previously unknown form of energy has been discerned within sub-atomic "particles" (heavy energy) about which little is understood beyond knowing of it's existence.
The "known" as well as the "unknown" from science, still allow for the existence of a deity, as well as manifestations of "energy" we are yet to understand . . . the implications of which cannot yet be determined . . . so anything is possible.
To restrict oneself to a religious or biblical version of God is restrictive and mind-closing, but then so is athiestic dogma IMO.
Shit . . . did that make sense?
