Well, zero, of course. But that’s not the point, is it?
I got lost at the assumption that God must be present to create mass to be frank.
The only point is I think God is superfluous and can be replaced with Universe or terms that explain natural laws, at least in science. Ie It makes no sense to assume characteristics of undefined things like God, in science, I think was my original point. That and read what he has supposedly revealed to us in The supposed Bible is the only means of knowing anything about God, if indeed it is even true and not a figment of a mind struggling to understand nature.
This is why I hate bringing God into science though, because it leads nowhere and no place, it’s a red herring that starts and ends with assumptions. First prove God exists by empiricism then proceed to apply properties or motivations or definitions or make up.
What’s the rest mass of God? Does he wear a wig? Is he old or young, is he ageless, what the hell does that even mean? Where’s me washboard?
Hey you’re preaching to the choir here! Scientific naturalism assumes it’s all physical. Maybe it is. Spiritual could be a physical dimension that is too subtle for existing instruments to detect.
Tell that to the string theorists.
Good one.
String theorists like all religions are not even wrong. 
hmmm…am i sensing that you are picking up some of HTH’s habits here, Sidhe? 
you mean what is unobserved for the first time? i may just need a cup of coffee here but… how do we even know what has been unobserved…what if the ancient greeks observed much more than was written down? 
anyway, if that is the case - what is unobserved is undefined - tell me then - how is it that much of humanity seems to feel they know who and what god is? i wonder what it is we feel that we are observing to be able to define a god.
Anyway, whether it is observed or not, still it is.
is it? How do we define something we have never perceived? And more importantly how do we know we are right without a test?
If a tree falls in the woods and there’s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound?
I’m operating under the premise that man made objects have physical characteristics.
I think that’s then your problem, I don’t think concepts like God and what it is have physical characteristics personally. That’s why any discussion about God isn’t science because there’s no evidence.
You’re half right. Science is not a suitable tool for examining the question of God because of its strict limitations, but there’s plenty of evidence for God- billions of people experience He/She/It.
Depends what you consider evidence, appealing to the unwashed masses is not really evidence any more than claiming you have no experience of God (like most of heathen England) is indicative of his lack of existence.
Indeed, both qualify perfectly well as evidence, although of course the reliability of what that evidence indicates is quite another matter.
We could assign a +/- 100% margin of error like science does. 
I’m certainly not a great believer in Bayesian inference particularly on this question in which everyone but the agnostics are biased beyond reason. I mean how many times have you heard a Muslim say my religion is better than yours based on the Quran vs The Bible. It’s just not going to work or be convincing because the evidence isn’t reliable evidence except to those who already believe.
Not sure about that.
If that were the case you’d expect the efforts of missionaries and evangelists to be futile. It must be convincing enough, otherwise nobody would ever be convinced by anyone else’s beliefs.
Yeah speak softly but carry a big stick is the history of religious ingress into countries.
Missionaries are going to run out of uneducated “peasants” who don’t take much convincing or have time to philosophise, sooner or later. I’m pretty sure that in the Western world religion is sliding somewhat, bar America, but then they are what’s left of the more out there Protestant movements that the Catholics couldn’t burn or ship off to their colonies.
If the moon reflects the light of the sun and shines in the night sky, if there is no one there to see it, does it still not shine?
Are we so arrogant as human beings as to think that by NOT hearing, seeing, feeling, intuiting the universe and nature, they become LESS than they are, that their very nature and characteristics change and are lost?
I think it is we ourselves who do not change and perhaps become lost when we do not observe these things.
A tree falling in a forest STILL makes a sound…sshhhheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee if you want to hear it, 
That’s not really the point.
You see the whole phrase is in reference to Quantum Mechanics (QM) and the observation problems, which are almost entirely philosophical. Although most people think its Zen Buddhism or something which it isn’t. Is what we observe coloured by our perceptions rather than what is really there, that is to say are we part of the instrument of measurement or to put it another way: should consciousness be defined as part of the experimental set up. Sound for example is just vibrating air, but hear denotes an ear and a brain with which to make sense of it, sound is not just vibrating air in this sense. It’s a clever phrase that really asks us to understand what is really real and what is merely a matter of our bias. In QM you can get silly and suggest that only thought exists, which is loosely known as the strong anthropic principle, here at its most extreme: if there is no thought then something doesn’t exist. Most physicists these days dismiss this as garbage but not all. This all comes into play with the questions arising from the Copenhagen Interpretation (CI) and the dozens of alternatives. You wouldn’t believe how loosely physics interpretations have to fit experiments to be given a shot, in fact only CI is accepted as remotely theoretical.
So how does that apply to religion? Well obviously bias and subjective/objective perception is a key question in determining the veracity of any faith. As key as philosophy is to determining which of the many interpretations of physics are likely to turn up anything more than dead ends.
Taking into account what I just said is that true? What is a sound in the sense of hearing?
What’s ‘objective interpretation’?
Theory generally. CI is the only one that is mainstream or consensus or even remotely objective and most scientists accept it only grudgingly because it fits the experiments and there are no others that fit them better. Religion has no such luck. There are as many interpretations as there are believers.
I beg your pardon- that was an error. I meant to say,
…although your post probably answers that too.