Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is String Theory Supernatural?
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 45 of 181 (697514)
04-26-2013 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by 1.61803
04-26-2013 9:40 AM


Re: The limit of size
Numbers writes:
Well subatomic particles like quarks are observable even if indirectly.
Due to colour confinement quarks cannot exist in isolation. So we can only observe the hadrons (e.g. the neutron) they collectively form. The way we detect the existence of quarks is by comparing the predictions of Quantum Chromo Dynamics with experimental results of how hadrons behave in high energy collisions and suchlike.
Numbers writes:
In order to observe something you must have something to bounce off the object. ie: photons, electrons, fingers on brail.
So how do we detect the existence of black holes?
Numbers writes:
My point about strings is that they are at the limit of how small something can be. They can never be observed. Ever.
We can’t observe the Big Bang either. And as I have pointed out above — Nor can you observe a quark. What we can do is observe the predicted effects of their existence.
Numbers writes:
So any prediction based on them will always be theoretical and speculative.
No. Not necessarily. If string theory is able to make verifiable specific measurable predictions (e.g. predict the existence of a new particle which is subsequently discovered) which are subsequently verified then to all practical intents and purposes we will have detected strings in the same way that we have detected quarks and detected the occurrence of the Big Bang.
Numbers writes:
Technically everything that we see is being observed indirectly.
Then it seems silly to distinguish between things like the Big Bang, quarks and black holes which are indirectly detected via specific measurable predictions and strings if string theory can make equally successful verifiable predictions.
The question that remains is whether string theory is able to make such verifiable predictions. That will be the test of the theory.
Numbers writes:
The limit of size
It's not about size. It's all about verifiable predictions.
But none of this has any real bearing on whether string theory is a theory of the supernatural or not. Obviously it isn’t.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by 1.61803, posted 04-26-2013 9:40 AM 1.61803 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by 1.61803, posted 04-29-2013 12:35 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 aren’t 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 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.
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 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.
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 replied

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
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 replied

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

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 80 of 181 (697886)
05-01-2013 12:20 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by GDR
04-30-2013 3:23 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
Straggler writes:
Do you think physicists are putting forward supernatural explanations to observable phenomena?
GDR writes:
Not at all.
Straggler writes:
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:
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 scientifically.
So the same parallel universes that physicists are suggesting are possible explanations for the gravitational effects of dark matter and suchlike you are citing as the supernatural dwelling place of your god.
The parallel universes physicists are suggesting as possible explanations for observable phenomena are, according to you, supernatural. So, if we follow the logic of your argument, physicists are in fact putting forward supernatural explanations for observable phenomena.
GDR writes:
I’ll go back to that SA headline. Entire Universe May Be Silently Interwoven With Our Own
Frankly I think you have seen that headline, gotten very over-excited, and started making all sorts of leaps of logic that are entirely unjustified. I can see how a theist eager to see their beliefs justified might read that headline and think something like I knew it! The unseen and silently interwoven reality I always theistically knew existed is now being confirmed by scientists. But are physicists and you talking about remotely similar things? Here is the fuller quote from your article:
quote:
Scientists are increasingly considering the possibility that dark matter, in particular, is not just a contrivance to account for the motion of visible matter but a hidden side of the universe with a rich inner life. It may consist of a veritable zoo of particles interacting through novel forces of naturean entire universe interwoven silently with our own.
Does it really sound like physicists are talking about heaven here? Or something that is congruent with Jesus resurrection? Or congruent with the notion that some intelligent being in another universe is silently influencing our hearts and minds in some sort of non-physical fashion? Really?
GDR writes:
Do you know if there has been any information back on that project?
This is pretty hot off the press. First results. Nothing conclusive Link
GDR writes:
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.
How is this different from saying that complex intelligent entities just randomly exist rather than not? I thought one of your key objections to non-theistic origins was randomness.? No?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 3:23 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-01-2013 6:22 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 82 of 181 (697910)
05-01-2013 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by 1.61803
04-30-2013 11:43 AM


Re: The limit of size
As I said previously:
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by 1.61803, posted 04-30-2013 11:43 AM 1.61803 has seen this message but not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 96 of 181 (698063)
05-02-2013 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by GDR
05-01-2013 6:22 PM


Random Incongruencies
I think we have reached a point where you need to explain in exactly what way you think your beliefs are 'congruent' with science. You seem to readily admit that your theistic beliefs are not evidenced, supported or even suggested by science. Furthermore you seem to recognise that some of your theistic beliefs are entirely inconsistent with everything we scientifically know (e.g. miracles such as the resurrection)
Does being 'congruent' with science simply mean invoking other universes to explain away anything you believe that science would otherwise describe as 'unscientific'...?
GDR writes:
I realize that what scientists are looking at is by no means theistic nor even close to what I’m suggesting.
Then where is this much proclaimed congruency?
GDR writes:
The point is that Christianity has had the position that God is ever-present and interacts with this world.
The sort of interaction you have put forward is however far from 'congruent' with science. Nothing physicists are talking about allows for the sort of interaction you have described at all.
GDR writes:
Here is a wiki article on The Hard Problem of Consciousness It seems to me that it is conceivable that it is our consciousness which is the point at which we interlock with some part of the 95.5% of the universe that we don’t perceive.
Invoking substance dualism whilst arguing that one's beliefs are 'congruent' with science is rather contradictory.....
GDR writes:
My belief is that God created us. Science informs me about processes that He used to bring it about.
What specifically do the conjectures of theoretical physicists regarding parallel universes tell you about God's processes?
Straggler writes:
So, if we follow the logic of your argument, physicists are in fact putting forward supernatural explanations for observable phenomena.
GDR writes:
I don’t intend to go that far.
In what way does the parallel universe you are postulating as the dwelling place of your god differ from the parallel universes physicists are invoking as potential explanations for observable phenomena (e.g. gravitational effects of dark matter)?
Straggler writes:
How is this different from saying that complex intelligent entities just randomly exist rather than not? I thought one of your key objections to non-theistic origins was randomness.? No?
GDR writes:
That was a long way of saying that I don’t really have a problem with randomness.
Oh. Then on what basis can one conclude that a hyper-intelligent-ready-made-complex-being just randomly exists rather than the simple-constituents-that-in-time-lead-to-the-moderately-intelligent-beings-that-are-us just randomly exists?
Straggler writes:
So if we are the science project of an alien in another universe that alien is God.....
GDR writes:
I would say yes as they are outside the physical laws of the universe that we are able to directly perceive.
I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that your beliefs as described are not only incongruent with science but with Christianity as well. The position you are putting forward sounds more like a rival to scientology than anything else.
Straggler writes:
Maybe this god of yours worships a higher being?
GDR writes:
I don’t believe that to be the case but so what if He did?
Then he wouldn't be the supreme supernatural being that seems to be a general requirement of monotheistic faiths such as Christianity and I would further argue the case that the position you are advocating is neither congruent with science nor really Christianity.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by GDR, posted 05-01-2013 6:22 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by GDR, posted 05-03-2013 8:29 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 119 of 181 (698574)
05-08-2013 8:48 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by AZPaul3
05-08-2013 7:57 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
AZ writes:
GDR is claiming that he uses (not past tense "used") science to "inform", not "form", his beliefs.
Yes - That is what he means.
But how can science inform one's belief in miracles?
Isn't that a contradiction in terms?
Furthermore (and to get vaguely back on topic) if the parallel universes suggested by theoretical physicists as being responsible for the gravitational effects attributed to dark matter are the supernatural dwelling place of God (AKA heaven) then physicists are effectively positing supernatural realms as potential answers to observable phenomena.
I understand the attempt to reconcile one's theistic beliefs with science. I just don't think it works. They are not 'congruent'.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2013 7:57 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2013 11:05 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 123 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2013 11:11 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 128 of 181 (698737)
05-09-2013 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by AZPaul3
05-08-2013 11:05 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
AZ writes:
First of all, you have to find an M-theorist who actually believes this crap about some heaven in the universe of brane-worlds.
I have never seen anyone but GDR ever suggest such a thing. I doubt any M-theorist would give this notion any credence at all. But it is this suggestion that prompted this thread.
AZ writes:
You are assuming that science shapes all his beliefs.
I'm questioning the claim that the beliefs in question are 'congruent' with science.
A belief in miracles isn't 'congruent' with science. Nor is the notion that a brane-world equals God's supernatiral dwelling place.
AZ writes:
But that still leaves a disconnect between accepting the science in some aspects but not in others.
Some aspects are 'congruent'. And some aspects are not. So overall the theistic beliefs in question are not 'congruent' with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by AZPaul3, posted 05-08-2013 11:05 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 10:32 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 130 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 1:25 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 131 of 181 (698790)
05-09-2013 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by AZPaul3
05-09-2013 1:25 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
AZ writes:
Are GDR's beliefs congruent with science? In some aspects they are, in some they are not.
Some aspects of that which biblical literalists believe are 'congruent' with science. Most however are not.
That some aspects are 'congruent with science' could be said of pretty much any belief at all no matter how crazy or divorced from reality. So that provides little justification for anything.
The fact is that GDR is eloquent, articulate, reasonable, well respected and generally speaking an all round good egg who holds theistic beliefs of the sort that probably inspire more good than bad. I like debating with him and think he's one of the best posters here. So I have no desire to diss him or his beliefs personally.
But the theistic beliefs in question (e.g. belief in miracles) are not 'congruent' with science no matter how it is spun. And this is obviously going to be pointed out in response to the claim that one's beliefs are 'congruent' with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by AZPaul3, posted 05-09-2013 1:25 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024