Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-28-2018 1:09 AM
219 online now:
kbertsche, PaulK (2 members, 217 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,641 Year: 7,464/29,783 Month: 1,688/1,708 Week: 91/488 Day: 2/89 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Is String Theory Supernatural?
GDR
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 46 of 181 (697515)
04-26-2013 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by onifre
04-26-2013 12:47 PM


Re: It is all natural
Onifre writes:

One last question. Is this being that you are calling a god, living in this other universe, is it ju st another evolved biological organism that has reached a level of super technology that is able to create universes and set in motion the laws of physics? Because if it is, it's super cool but not supernatural.

Hi Oni

I appreciate the other questions but I have no answer for them. All Iíve 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 wouldnít 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 donít 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 donít have any problem agreeing with the statement in the last part of the quote from your post.

What if God was eternal and Godís dimension was an eternal universe with more than one time dimension. Would He be supernatural then?

Cheers


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by onifre, posted 04-26-2013 12:47 PM onifre has not yet responded

    
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 47 of 181 (697516)
04-26-2013 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by ringo
04-26-2013 11:59 AM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Ringo writes:

If the laws of our universe were a subset of the multiversal laws, then the multiversal laws that do not apply to our universe would be "super" or "extra".

So if an entity exists which is unbounded by any such laws, an entity which is able to do things which breach the physical laws of the multiverse - Is that supernatural too?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by ringo, posted 04-26-2013 11:59 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 04-27-2013 12:50 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 48 of 181 (697520)
04-26-2013 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by New Cat's Eye
04-26-2013 1:29 PM


Straggler writes:

Is String Theory Supernatural?

CS writes:

I don't know because I don't know what supernatural is.

CS writes:

Then how can you claim to believe in the supernatural?

CS writes:

It usually works in getting the point across when you're talking about gods n'stuff.

If you know what it means when applied to "gods n'stuff" then just apply the same meaning of the word to the question of whether string theory is a supernatural theory.

If you know why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then ask yourself if concepts such as the multiverse qualify on the same basis.

If you literally have no idea why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then much of your contribution to numerous EvC topics over the years makes little or no sense.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2013 1:29 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2013 2:27 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 49 of 181 (697521)
04-26-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by GDR
04-26-2013 11:04 AM


Re: It is all natural
I don't think anything you have described there is remotely suggested or supported by any concepts in modern physics.

All you have done is replace "heaven" (or "spiritual realm") that would normally be used to describe god's dwelling place and instead use the phrase "parallel universe".

I can see, given the success of science, why theists like to feel that their beliefs are congruent with science. But ask yourself why you feel the need to go to such lengths to convince yourself that science is compatible with your beliefs.....

A god that is unbounded by any physical laws at all would be congruent with any laws of physics of the multi-verse or anywhere else. If unfalsifiable compatibility with science is your aim then why not just go down that route?

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by GDR, posted 04-26-2013 11:04 AM GDR has not yet responded

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 50 of 181 (697522)
04-26-2013 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Straggler
04-26-2013 1:52 PM


If you know what it means when applied to "gods n'stuff" then just apply the same meaning of the word to the question of whether string theory is a supernatural theory.

If you know why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then ask yourself if concepts such as the multiverse qualify on the same basis.

I thought that's what I did. With the god definition, aka "magic", string theory is not supernatural.

Rather than trying to prove it wrong, I'm trying to make sense out of the statement. That why I said that if they are using the word to mean "outside our universe" then I can see how it would work for describing string theory.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2013 1:52 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2013 6:47 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 51 of 181 (697528)
04-26-2013 6:47 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by New Cat's Eye
04-26-2013 2:27 PM


Straggler writes:

If you know why "gods n'stuff" qualify as supernatural then ask yourself if concepts such as the multiverse qualify on the same basis.

CS writes:

I thought that's what I did. With the god definition, aka "magic", string theory is not supernatural.

Right. So, unless you intend to equivocate, you know what we are talking about when we use the term "supernatural" and the multiverse doesn't qualify. Case closed.

Straggler writes:

Do you know what "magic" is? Do you believe in magic?

CS writes:

Don't know, don't care.

Well apparently you do know and do care enough for it to be central to the distinction you make.

CS writes:

That why I said that if they are using the word to mean "outside our universe" then I can see how it would work for describing string theory.

Without equivocating can you answer the following - Is the multiverse a natural or supernatural concept?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-26-2013 2:27 PM New Cat's Eye has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 52 of 181 (697530)
04-26-2013 7:28 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by GDR
04-26-2013 2:08 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
GDR writes:

By the Webster's definition that I quoted earlier dark matter would be considered supernatural.

Do you think physicists are putting forward supernatural explanations to observable phenomena?

GDR writes:

..but I'm still not clear on what you would use as a definition of supernatural.

1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.

Or - To put it another way - Neither derived from nor subject to natural law and thus inherently materially inexplicable.

I see no reason why physical/natural laws stop at our universe. Indeed if there is a multiverse our universe and the physical laws it operates under are a direct consequence of the physical laws of the multiverse.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by GDR, posted 04-26-2013 2:08 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 04-27-2013 11:27 AM Straggler has responded

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 3450
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 1.8


(2)
Message 53 of 181 (697538)
04-27-2013 12:34 AM


What theory?
If this thread is going to continue in the vein of semantic masturbation I might as well add my own two cents worth. Since the Canadians have announced that they no longer will mint or distribute pennies I suppose I'll have to use two US pennies instead which seems appropriate since I live in the US and don't use Canadian pennies anyway.

Read Brian Greene. Read Lisa Randal. Read Lee Smolin. Lots of String Theorists, more correctly, M-theorists.

M-theory does not posit anything ďoutsideĒ this universe. The ďuniverseĒ as they describe it is the same we all know and love. The ďUniverseĒ is everything there is. The is nothing more, nothing ďoutsideĒ.

The M-theorist just defines the universe as a multifaceted series of brane-worlds upon one of which our space-time is imbedded. That each brane-world may have distinctly different physical laws, constants and dimensions is no more ďunnaturalĒ than different atmospheres for different planets in our own brane-world.

By Straggler's own definition in the OP M-theory cannot be said to be of the supernatural. We just do not know what the natural mechanisms are that allow different physics to manifest on different branes in this larger context of Universe.

As long as we're on the subject, a wee bit of an aside:

[aside]

M-theory really isn't. The classic definitions we are so want to hit creationists over the head with when they go astray must apply here as well. There is a question as to whether M-theory even qualifies as a weak hypothesis. There are glimmers of a testing regimen (think super-symmetry) but at this point M-theory is untested, some accuse it of being untestable, and thus falls well outside the vaunted appellation ďTheoryĒ.

[/aside]


  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4414
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 54 of 181 (697546)
04-27-2013 11:27 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Straggler
04-26-2013 7:28 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
Straggler writes:

I can see, given the success of science, why theists like to feel that their beliefs are congruent with science. But ask yourself why you feel the need to go to such lengths to convince yourself that science is compatible with your beliefs.....

Of course. Why is it ok for atheists to say that science are congruent with their views but theists arenít allowed to do the same thing? My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as Iíve 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 ďThe Language of GodĒ as he used it in the title of his book.

Straggler writes:

I don't think anything you have described there is remotely suggested or supported by any concepts in modern physics.
All you have done is replace "heaven" (or "spiritual realm") that would normally be used to decsribe god's dwelling place and instead use the phrase "parallel universe".

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?

Straggler writes:

A god that is unbounded by any physical laws at all would be congruent with any laws of physics of the multiverse or anywhere else. If unfalsifiable compatibility with science is your aim then why not just go down that route?

Iím not looking for unfalsifiable compatibility. I have that by simply saying that God did it. Iím 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.

Straggler writes:

Do you think physicists are putting forward supernatural explanations to observable phenomena?

Not at all.

GDR writes:

..but I'm still not clear on what you would use as a definition of supernatural.

Straggler writes:

1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena.
Or - To put it another way - Neither derived from nor subject to natural law and thus inherently materially inexplicable.

That sounds good, but in practice it seems that what seemed supernatural will, in some cases, with scientific advancement be shown to be natural.

Straggler writes:

I see no reason why physical/natural laws stop at our universe. Indeed if there is a multiverse our universe and th e physical laws it operates under are a direct consequence of the physical laws of the multiverse.

I donít have a problem with that. If God exists somewhere in the multi-verse with its own set of natural laws thatís fine with me. It seems that in your mind a god canít be restricted by any form of natural law. I donít see why thatís a problem


He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2013 7:28 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Straggler, posted 04-29-2013 6:55 AM GDR has responded
 Message 60 by Taq, posted 04-29-2013 5:00 PM GDR has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 14595
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 55 of 181 (697548)
04-27-2013 12:50 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by Straggler
04-26-2013 1:45 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Straggler writes:

So if an entity exists which is unbounded by any such laws, an entity which is able to do things which breach the physical laws of the multiverse - Is that supernatural too?


That's what I would call "supernatural".

In a multiverse situation, I think the most likely situation would be that an entity could use the natural laws only in and of his own unverse (like we can). There is a possibility of overlap of those laws between universes - e.g. an entity from another unierse might be visible in ours.

Less likely is an entity that could use his laws in our universe to do things that are "impossible" in our universe - e.g. make massive objects repel instead of attract each other.

Least likely is a "super" entity that could manipulate every universe in that way.

(Mind you, I'm looking at this from a science fiction viewpoint and I have no idea of the mathematics involved.)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2013 1:45 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Straggler, posted 04-29-2013 6:58 AM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 56 of 181 (697709)
04-29-2013 6:55 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by GDR
04-27-2013 11:27 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
Straggler writes:

Do you think physicists are putting forward supernatural explanations to observable phenomena?

GDR writes:

Not at all.

Then in what sense are the parallel universes physicists are talking about and the place in which you are suggesting your supernatural god resides congruent?

GDR writes:

Why is it ok for atheists to say that science are congruent with their views but theists arenít allowed to do the same thing?

Well most of those who describe themselves as atheists generally subscribe to a scientific view of the world. Evidence. Epistemological stance. Skeptical approach. Human psychology as the likely cause of unevidenced beliefs. Etc. etc.

The theistically inclined however necessarily advocate faith, subjective experience, divine revelation, scripture and so on and so forth as justification for their beliefs. Otherwise how on Earth could they arrive at the specific conclusions they have?

So atheists aren't seeking to make their existing views congruent with science. They consider their views to be derived from a scientific approach to begin with. Theists on the other hand (ranging from outright creationists to the more reasonable such as yourself) have already opted for a different approach. Why (for example) is someone who believes that they can communicate with god on a personal level based on subjective 'evidence' going to to care whether the laws of physics are consistent with this or not?

Frankly when theists start insisting that their beliefs are consistent with science it smacks of post-hoc rationalising.

GDR writes:

My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as Iíve said numerous times, I believe that reason in general which includes scientific reasoning, should be used to help form our understanding of God.

GDR writes:

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.

The sort of communication back and forth between 'god' and us as well as miracles and resurrecting Jesus and suchlike all sound a long way from being compatible with anything modern science tells us about parallel universes (or indeed anything else)

Take this "influence" you speak of for example. How? Via wormholes? Via gravity? If there is any physical communication between the universe in which this god of yours lives and our own we should be able to detect it - Right?

Here is an example of the sort of detection mechanisms we are already putting in place: Link

quote:
From its high vantage point it is hoped that the experiment will open new windows into particle physics and cause a revolution in our understanding of the Universe.

Ting hopes that AMS-02 will provide data that proves the existence of parallel universes that are composed of anti-matter. It is also hoped that the experiment will also discover particles that contain magnetic and electric particles that are exactly the opposite of ordinary particles.

Discoveries could verify theories and answer basic questions regarding how the universe formed, such as that of Burt Ovrut, professor of theoretical high energy physics at the University of Pennsylvania and pioneer of the use of M-theory to explain the Big bang without the presence of a singularity. Ovrut and colleagues imagine two branes, universes like ours, separated by a tiny gap as tiny as 10-32 meters. There would be no communication between the two universes except for our parallel sister universe's gravitational pull, which could cross the tiny gap.

Orvut's theory could explain the effect of dark matter where areas of the Universe are heavier than they should be given everything that's present. With Ovrut's theory, the nagging problems surrounding the Big Bang (beginning from what, and caused how?) are replaced by an eternal cosmic cycle where dark energy is no longer a mysterious unknown quantity, but rather the very extra gravitational force that drives the universe to universe (brane-brane) interaction.


Straggler writes:

1.of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena. Or - To put it another way - Neither derived from nor subject to natural law and thus inherently materially inexplicable.

GDR writes:

That sounds good, but in practice it seems that what seemed supernatural will, in some cases, with scientific advancement be shown to be natural.

Then that doesn't just sound good. It also sounds accurate. How many things have humans believed to have supernatural causes which we now know are entirely natural......?

Straggler writes:

I see no reason why physical/natural laws stop at our universe. Indeed if there is a multiverse our universe and th e physical laws it operates under are a direct consequence of the physical laws of the multiverse.

GDR writes:

I donít have a problem with that. If God exists somewhere in the multi-verse with its own set of natural laws thatís fine with me. It seems that in your mind a god canít be restricted by any form of natural law. I donít see why thatís a problem.

If god is just utilising the natural laws of the universe in which he finds himself then he's little more than a technologically advanced version of us asking himself where the laws of his own universe came from.....

Maybe this god of yours worships a higher being?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 04-27-2013 11:27 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 3:23 PM Straggler has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 57 of 181 (697710)
04-29-2013 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by ringo
04-27-2013 12:50 PM


Re: Thread Copied from Proposed New Topics Forum
Straggler writes:

So if an entity exists which is unbounded by any such laws, an entity which is able to do things which breach the physical laws of the multiverse - Is that supernatural too?

Ringo writes:

That's what I would call "supernatural".

Me too. Which is why I wouldn't call the natural laws of another universe (or the multiverse itself) "supernatural".


This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 04-27-2013 12:50 PM ringo has acknowledged this reply

  
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2756
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 58 of 181 (697743)
04-29-2013 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Straggler
04-26-2013 1:36 PM


Re: The limit of size
Straggler writes:

Due to colour confinement quarks cannot exist in isolation. So we can only observe the hadrons (e.g. the neutron) they collectively form.

And that bit means they are observed indirectly que no?

Straggler writes:

So how do we detect the existence of black holes?

Indirectly. I believe by observing the shit thats happening around them.

Straggler writes:

We canít observe the Big Bang either. And as I have pointed out above Ė Nor can you observe a quark. What we can do is observe the predicted effects of their existence.


Cue the Eagles music:
Well Straggler when your traveling down a dark desert highway,
cool wind in your hair......and you see up ahead in the distance..
the lights from other cars on the same highway disappear and reappear you can conclude there is a hill up ahead without actually seeing the hill. Yes the effects of the hills existence. But we could go there and walk up that hill and see it does infact exist. I mean we know how light behaves, we know how gravity behaves, we can make observations that confirm with confidence the existance of what may be behind those observations.
CMB for the big bang, high energy collisions of hadrons for quarks, and light for black holes and hills.
Those are things that can be verified by experiment.

Straggler writes:

It's not about size. It's all about verifiable predictions.

Of which cannot be made at Planke scales as far as I know.

But I do agree Mr. Straggler strings theory is not supernatural.
God making strings, now that's supernatural.


"You were not there for the beginning. You will not be there for the end. Your knowledge of what is going on can only be superficial and relative" William S. Burroughs

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Straggler, posted 04-26-2013 1:36 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Straggler, posted 04-29-2013 1:10 PM 1.61803 has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 162 days)
Posts: 10198
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 59 of 181 (697744)
04-29-2013 1:10 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by 1.61803
04-29-2013 12:35 PM


Re: The limit of size
If string theory makes enough experimentally verifiable predictions then we will have indirectly "detected" strings in the same way that we have indirectly "detected" quarks, the big bang, black holes, human evolution and so on and so forth.

Straggler writes:

It's not about size. It's all about verifiable predictions.

Numbers writes:

Of which cannot be made at Plank scales as far as I know.

The detectable predicted effects of strings existing wouldn't necessarily be at the Planck scale. That is the entire point. Verifiable predictions could involve measurable aspects of the CMB, detecting gravitational effects of parallel universes, detecting the extra dimensions string theory demands, symmetry breaking in high energy particle accelerators etc. etc. etc.

All that is necessary is for the predicted effects to be a logical consequence of the theory in question. The challenge that remains for string theorists is to come up with some predictions that are experimentally verifiable.

But to just say "strings are too small to detect" is to completely miss the point of how most conclusions in science are actually drawn. The logical consequences (aka predictions) of string theory being correct could manifest at all sorts of size levels from the cosmological to the Planck.

How to spot a multiverse

quote:
Here's a nice loophole: not all of the predictions from string theory take place at the unreachable Planck scale. Supersymmetry could give us a window on the Planck scale using currently available technology

quote:
If supersymmetry is detected at next-generation particle physics experiments, then the details of the supersymmetric physics will have something to say, hopefully, about any underlying superstring model and whether there is Kaluza-Klein compactification of extra space dimensions into some tiny rolled up internal space, or whether we are all living in the four dimensional equivalent of being flies stuck on the wall of a higher dimensional Universe

Link

quote:
Under certain circumstances, fundamental strings produced at or near the end of inflation can be "stretched" to astronomical proportions. These cosmic strings could be observed in various ways, for instance by their gravitational lensing effects. However, certain field theories also predict cosmic strings arising from topological defects in the field configuration.

quote:
Theories with extra dimensions predict that the strength of gravity increases much more rapidly at small distances than is the case in 3 dimensions (where it increase as r−2). Depending on the size of the dimensions, this could lead to phenomena such as the production of micro black holes at the LHC, or be detected in microgravity experiments.

quote:
String theory as currently understood makes a series of predictions for the structure of the universe at the largest scales. Many phases in string theory have very large, positive vacuum energy.[24] Regions of the universe that are in such a phase will inflate exponentially rapidly in a process known as eternal inflation. As such, the theory predicts that most of the universe is very rapidly expanding. However, these expanding phases are not stable, and can decay via the nucleation of bubbles of lower vacuum energy. Since our local region of the universe is not very rapidly expanding, string theory predicts we are inside such a bubble. The spatial curvature of the "universe" inside the bubbles that form by this process is negative, a testable prediction.

Link

See?

It might be difficult. But it's silly to insist that it's impossible.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 04-29-2013 12:35 PM 1.61803 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by 1.61803, posted 04-30-2013 11:43 AM Straggler has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7430
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 60 of 181 (697763)
04-29-2013 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by GDR
04-27-2013 11:27 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
Of course. Why is it ok for atheists to say that science are congruent with their views but theists arenít allowed to do the same thing? My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as Iíve 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.

Then show us the science that supports these claims:

quote:
Letís 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.



This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by GDR, posted 04-27-2013 11:27 AM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 04-29-2013 8:13 PM Taq has responded

  
Prev123
4
56
...
13Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018