Is String Theory Supernatural?

I agree with 1.61803. However you then can argue, as you did in that other thread, that if God is constrained at all then it begs the question of who created God. But, as 1.61803 is basically saying, if God has given us life, and has certain hopes for us, then that is who we are answerable to. I would say yes as they are outside the physical laws of the universe that we are able to directly perceive.Edited by GDR, : typos

Why not if you want to look at it that way? Here is the first definition from Webster's:

quote:

---

: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

---

A multi-verse is certainly outside the visible observable universe as is dark matter for that matter. The line gets pretty blurred.

I think we might have different assumptions about the subject. Frankly I was just questioning the definition of the word supernatural without the definition necessarily involving god(s).I answered your first question about an alien creator being a god but after that I was just looking for a definition so that it could be applied to string theory. It seems to me that if you decide that string theory is supernatural it doesn't make any assumptions about whether there is god or not.So you tell me. "Do things flip from being supernatural to natural depending on our technological ability to detect them as far as you are concerned?" From the dictionary definitions the line seems to be blurred and this has nothing to do with my theistic beliefs.

That sounds good to me, as does what Ringo suggested.

I think so. If sting theory is about uni-dimensional particles then absolutely. String theory, (from a virtually zero knowledge base so go easy on me if I get this wrong), mathematically requires additional time and space dimensions. I would be inclined to think that what is meant by that is that those dimensions would be part of this physical universe and as a result they to would be natural.I think that when we talk about other universes with a different sets of dimensions they would be called supernatural. I would consider that statement agnostic. I'm not sure that the term supernatural requires any statements about god(s).

That would be the current understanding but the more our knowledge advances less and less seems supernatural, but I'm still not clear on what you would use as a definition of supernatural. By the Webster's definition that I quoted earlier dark matter would be considered supernatural.In one sense a thought or an idea is supernatural. Sure we can observe what goes on in the brain but we can't see the thought or idea. An idea is real but it isn't physical and it isn't directly perceivable except for the individual who has the thought. Well even Einstein called QM "spooky action at a distance". I think I answered that with Message 490 in the other thread. However, I'm not saying that it is a matter of technological ability, but I don't completely discount the idea that possibly we might somehow connect with God's universe through science in the centuries to come. No, I don't think it likely but why say it's impossible.

Not to worry, because if you could I wouldn't understand it anyway.

I thought in terms of what is supernatural maybe a discussion about Jesus would be interesting in light of our previous discussion.Let’s assume that God lives in a parallel universe that somehow interlocks with our universe in a way that is not directly perceivable to us. God is responsible for the existence of life in our universe and has a long term plan for us. Part of that plan is that we are to have hearts that are genuinely kind, merciful, loving and fair. Another part of the plan is that our universe is not going to last forever and so that at the end of time there will be a resurrection into new bodily form for life in a renewed universe where the two parallel universes come together as one, where the hearts of all will be kind, merciful, loving and fair.Because these two universes are interconnected God is able to subtly speak to the hearts, minds and imaginations of humans, but again however we are able to reject His influence. However, in the middle of time He chooses one man, namely Jesus, to perfectly embody His heart for us. Through Him He is able to bring about miracles that foreshadow the renewed world that He has planned for us, by bringing His healing and love directly to the world through the man Jesus. Mankind rejects God and His messenger and puts Him to death. However, God demonstrates that death is not the last word and does for Jesus what is planned for all of this creation at the end of time and resurrects Him.So then, is Jesus supernatural? From God’s perspective it is all natural, and if we had perfect knowledge of God and His parallel universe it would all appear natural to us as well. On the assumption that all of that is true would Jesus be supernatural?

Hi OniI appreciate the other questions but I have no answer for them. All I’ve done is speculate by trying to putmy theological beliefs together with the little science I know. Even if the scenario I painted was 100% correct it wouldn’t mean that I would have answers for any of the questions you posed.My point was to ask Straggler if under that scenario would Jesus be considered supernatural. It seems that the idea of what is supernatural varies considerably and I don’t have any firm idea myself.The question you posed here is about whether God is supernatural or not as opposed to Jesus which is what I was asking. However, I don’t have any problem agreeing with the statement in the last part of the quote from your post.What if God was eternal and God’s dimension was an eternal universe with more than one time dimension. Would He be supernatural then?Cheers

Of course. Why is it ok for atheists to say that science are congruent with their views but theists aren’t allowed to do the same thing? My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as I’ve said numerous times, I believe that reason in general which includes scientific reasoning, should be used to help form our understanding of God. It was clear from his epistles that Paul believed that.How many times have atheists said that evolution has eliminated the need for God. I agree with people like Francis Collins that the intricacies of evolution, DNA etc, is suggestive of theism. Francis Collins goes so far as to call it The Language of God as he used it in the title of his book. Christianity has always taught that God co-exists with us. It was an article of faith as how could that be possible. Now science is showing us a way that we can actually get our minds around that concept. Maybe parallel universe is not the best term to use. How about co-existent universe? I’m not looking for unfalsifiable compatibility. I have that by simply saying that God did it. I’m simply speculating by suggesting points at which Christianity and science together might form a clearer understanding of God. My speculations are in the long run falsifiable but are unlikely, at least in this life, to ever be confirmed. Not at all. That sounds good, but in practice it seems that what seemed supernatural will, in some cases, with scientific advancement be shown to be natural. I don’t have a problem with that. If God exists somewhere in the multi-verse with its own set of natural laws that’s fine with me. It seems that in your mind a god can’t be restricted by any form of natural law. I don’t see why that’s a problem

I'm not saying that science supports theism. My point is that atheists take science and then use the science to show compatibility with atheistic claims. An example would be evolution. I've asked on this forum for not just congruence, but evidence for atheism and the answer has been evolution. Sure we can look at evolution and see that there are natural processes involved but that is not evidence that there isn't an intelligence that created the process or even possibly guided it.They are making the case of showing how evolution is compatible with and informs their existing beliefs.I'm not saying that science proves anything about my theistic beliefs. I'm only pointing out where science is consistent with and can inform my existing beliefs.I look at science from a theistic point of view and then allow the science to mould those views as there is no science that gives any real evidence for the existence or non-existence of God.

Hi StragSorry to be so slow getting back to you but replying to your posts takes more thought and time than most. My point is simply that the Christian idea of God is that He is eternal and also that He interacts with us in this world primarily through our hearts and minds. If God exists in another universe that is silently interwoven with our own, and if that universe experiences time or change through more than one dimension, then we can gain a better understanding of how what has been taken on faith can be conceived of scientificallyI don’t know if my speculations hold any truth or not but it does show that there can be congruency between the Christian faith and scientific research. Frankly if God’s universe were to turn out to be detectable by us, and if His universe had its own set of laws that would be fine by me. I suppose that by your understanding that would make God non-supernatural, (which I suppose would be natural ) but so what. If God is constrained by some set of laws but is still able to be responsible for this creation, and if that God is a god that is truly represented by what I see in Jesus Christ then I have no problem worshipping Him. I agree with all of that except that I have seen many occasions where atheists use science as an argument against theism. Certainly if science disagrees with a specific article of some faiths as it does in the case of instant creation 6000 years ago, or a worldwide flood for that matter, then that is one thing. However, when it comes to a debate between basic theism/deism/atheism it is agnostic. That isn’t to say that we can point out where science is compatible with our beliefs. I’ll go back to that SA headline. I Entire Universe May Be Silently Interwoven With Our Own. If it is interwoven then presumably it somehow interlocks with our own universe. I find that the resurrection stories of Jesus to be credible accounts of the events that took place after the crucifixion. The Gospel writers certainly had no sense of other universes/dimensions. They just wrote about what they or others had observed and told the story to the best of their ability. However with modern day science we can now look at the stories in a different light, and I believe that in the future with more advanced science we will have an even clearer picture of how we might be able to interact with other universes that we don’t perceive directly. Thanks for the link. Do you know if there has been any information back on that project? We are in complete agreement there. The Christian idea is that eventually God’s heavenly universe and our earthly universe will become one. At that point presumably the two universes will function with the same set of laws and we will find that it is all natural. I believe that God is eternal. On the assumption that I am correct then there is no question of origins as there is in what we experience in a universe with one time dimension and a point where T=0. I don’t believe that to be the case but so what if He did?

I agree. I think that there is a general belief amongst non-Christians as well as some Christians that it is either evolution or Christianity. I think that gets extended in people's minds so that it is either evolution or theism.I agree with your statement. Paul wrote in Romans that we can learn about God through what we observe in our natural world. I think that he was right. I do think that we need the proper balance between scripture, experience, history, reason and the accumulated wisdom of those who have gone before to form our views. I find that nothing makes sense of all that to anywhere near the degree that Christianity does, but that is JMHO.

There is a difference in saying that science is congruent with my theistic views as opposed to saying it supports them. If you read what Straggler has written he looks at the same stuff and comes to a non-theistic position. The science itself doesn't support either theism or atheism. It can be shown to be congruent with either.My point is simply that science does not mitigate against Christianity and can be used to inform it. We agree. Well, actually there is evidence but just not enough to convince you. For one thing the Bible is evidence. The Gospel writers in particular wrote out their accounts of events 2000 years ago. When you look at what is written it is pretty hard to believe that it is a total fabrication. It was written to be believed and we can either believe that they got it correct or that they got it completely wrong somehow. We would agree that science isn't able to prove that what I believe is correct. However, as an example science has shown me that God didn't create humans in one instant but that humans evolved. This has helped to form my picture of how God interacts with this world.

That's why it is called a miracle. Just the same though, another universe, that is interlocked with our own but not perceptible to us, does give us a frame of reference to consider.