Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8857 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-19-2018 5:58 AM
199 online now:
PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), Tangle (3 members, 196 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: rldawnca
Post Volume:
Total: 837,051 Year: 11,874/29,783 Month: 896/1,642 Week: 4/306 Day: 4/28 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
67
...
13Next
Author Topic:   Is String Theory Supernatural?
GDR
Member
Posts: 4477
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 61 of 181 (697768)
04-29-2013 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Taq
04-29-2013 5:00 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
Taq writes:

Then show us the science that supports these claims:

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.


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 60 by Taq, posted 04-29-2013 5:00 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by NoNukes, posted 04-30-2013 8:11 AM GDR has responded
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 04-30-2013 11:51 AM GDR has responded

    
NoNukes
Member
Posts: 10868
From: Central NC USA
Joined: 08-13-2010
Member Rating: 2.4


Message 62 of 181 (697789)
04-30-2013 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
04-29-2013 8:13 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
I've asked on this forum for not just congruence, but evidence for atheism and the answer has been evolution.

I cannot remember seeing this argument. Evidence of evolution is evidence that YEC beliefs are unfounded, but not that religion itself is wrong. The latter argument is clearly wrong.

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.

Is this effect something other than constraining your beliefs?


Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)

I would say here something that was heard from an ecclesiastic of the most eminent degree; ĎThat the intention of the Holy Ghost is to teach us how one goes to heaven, not how the heaven goes.í Galileo Galilei 1615.

If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 04-29-2013 8:13 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 3:37 PM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
1.61803
Member
Posts: 2763
From: Lone Star State USA
Joined: 02-19-2004


Message 63 of 181 (697819)
04-30-2013 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 59 by Straggler
04-29-2013 1:10 PM


Re: The limit of size
Hello Straggler,
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

Here is a article you might find interesting from May last year.
http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=4634

Edited by 1.61803, : edit link

Edited by 1.61803, : reworded.


"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 59 by Straggler, posted 04-29-2013 1:10 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Straggler, posted 05-01-2013 2:48 PM 1.61803 has acknowledged this reply

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 64 of 181 (697820)
04-30-2013 11:51 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by GDR
04-29-2013 8:13 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
I'm not saying that science supports theism.

Then what did you mean when you said:

"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

It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

My point is that atheists take science and then use the science to show compatibility with atheistic claims.

As an atheist, I have to say that this is the most backwards claim possible. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. That's it. It has nothing to do with science.

What you may see is a tendency on the part of atheists to adopt the findings of science, but this is hardly mandatory to be an atheist. In fact, there are atheists who believe in all sorts of woo, it just doesn't involve deities.

I've asked on this forum for not just congruence, but evidence for atheism and the answer has been evolution.

Atheism is the null hypothesis, so it is really the lack of evidence for a deity that keeps us at the null hypothesis.

We could use Bertrand Russell's Teapot as our example. What is the evidence that there is NOT a cosmic teapot circling the Sun in the orbit of Mars? Well, there isn't any, but there is simply no evidence that would lead you to conclude that there is such a cosmic teapot. Same for deities.

They are making the case of showing how evolution is compatible with and informs their existing beliefs.

Evolution only informs our beliefs as to how the universe works. It has nothing to do with atheism. We could NOT know how life changes over time, and atheism would still be the same. There were atheists before Darwin, and there were after.

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.

What's the difference?

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.

It would seem to me that you add your unevidenced beliefs on top of science.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by GDR, posted 04-29-2013 8:13 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Phat, posted 04-30-2013 1:09 PM Taq has responded
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 4:00 PM Taq has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10975
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


(1)
Message 65 of 181 (697823)
04-30-2013 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
04-30-2013 11:51 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
It would seem to me that you add your unevidenced beliefs on top of science.

ev∑i∑dence (v-dns)
n.
1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment: The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place. Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.
2. Something indicative; an outward sign: evidence of grief on a mourner's face.
3. Law The documentary or oral statements and the material objects admissible as testimony in a court of law.
tr.v. ev∑i∑denced, ev∑i∑denc∑ing, ev∑i∑denc∑es
1. To indicate clearly; exemplify or prove.
2. To support by testimony; attest.

Nothing wrong with that!

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Taq, posted 04-30-2013 11:51 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Taq, posted 04-30-2013 2:53 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 66 of 181 (697829)
04-30-2013 2:53 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Phat
04-30-2013 1:09 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
Nothing wrong with that!

There is if you want to claim that your views are scientific. Scientists also frown on those who add unevidenced and superfluous mechanisms for no other purpose than to assuage their beliefs. Theists who want to give their faith based beliefs the outward appearance of being scientific are not doing themselves any favors. They are only furthering the perception that scientific understanding trumps faith based beliefs.

Afterall, how often do you see scientists trying to dress their theories in religious regalia in an attempt to make their theory appear better supported? Why do we see the opposite so often?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Phat, posted 04-30-2013 1:09 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4477
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 67 of 181 (697834)
04-30-2013 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Straggler
04-29-2013 6:55 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
Hi Strag

Sorry to be so slow getting back to you but replying to your posts takes more thought and time than most.

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?

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 scientifically

I donít 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 Godís 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.

Straggler writes:

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' goi ng 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.

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 isnít to say that we can point out where science is compatible with our beliefs.

Straggler writes:

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?

Iíll go back to that SA headline. ďI Entire Universe May Be Silently Interwoven With Our OwnĒ. 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 donít perceive directly.

Straggler writes:

Here is an example of the sort of detection mechanisms we are alrea dy putting in place:

Thanks for the link. Do you know if there has been any information back on that project?

Straggler writes:

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......?

We are in complete agreement there. The Christian idea is that eventually Godís 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.

Straggler writes:

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.....

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.

Straggler writes:

Maybe this god of yours worships a higher being?

I donít believe that to be the case but so what if He did?

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 56 by Straggler, posted 04-29-2013 6:55 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Straggler, posted 05-01-2013 12:20 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4477
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 68 of 181 (697835)
04-30-2013 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by NoNukes
04-30-2013 8:11 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
NoNukes writes:

I cannot remember seeing this argument. Evidence of evolution is evidence that YEC beliefs are unfounded, but not that religion itself is wrong. The latter argument is clearly wrong.

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.

GDR writes:

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.

NoNukes writes:

Is this effect something other than constraining your beliefs?

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.


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 62 by NoNukes, posted 04-30-2013 8:11 AM NoNukes has acknowledged this reply

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4477
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 69 of 181 (697836)
04-30-2013 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Taq
04-30-2013 11:51 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
GDR writes:

I'm not saying that science supports theism.

Taq writes:

Then what did you mean when you said:

"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

It seems that you want to have your cake and eat it too.

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.

Taq writes:

As an atheist, I have to say that this is the most backwards claim possible. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in deities. That's it. It has nothing to do with science.

What you may see is a tendency on the part of atheists to adopt the findings of science, but this is hardly mandatory to be an atheist. In fact, there are atheists who believe in all sorts of woo, it just doesn't involve deities.

We agree.

Taq writes:

Atheism is the null hypothesis, so it is really the lack of evidence for a deity that keeps us at the null hypothesis.

We could use Bertrand Russell's Teapot as our example. What is the evidence that there is NOT a cosmic teapot circling the Sun in the orbit of Mars? Well, there isn't any, but there is simply no evidence that would lead you to conclude that there is such a cosmic teapot. Same for deities.

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.

GDR writes:

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.

Taq writes:

What's the difference?


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.

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 64 by Taq, posted 04-30-2013 11:51 AM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2013 4:12 PM GDR has responded
 Message 73 by Taq, posted 04-30-2013 4:42 PM GDR has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 181 (697837)
04-30-2013 4:12 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
04-30-2013 4:00 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
My point is simply that science does not mitigate against Christianity and can be used to inform it.

Uh, scientifically speaking... when people die they don't come back to life 3 days later.

But I get what you're sayin'.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 4:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 4:23 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4477
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 71 of 181 (697838)
04-30-2013 4:23 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2013 4:12 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
C S writes:

Uh, scientifically speaking... when people die they don't come back to life 3 days later.

But I get what you're sayin'.

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.


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 70 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2013 4:12 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2013 4:32 PM GDR has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 72 of 181 (697839)
04-30-2013 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by GDR
04-30-2013 4:23 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
C S writes:

Uh, scientifically speaking... when people die they don't come back to life 3 days later.
But I get what you're sayin'.

That's why it is called a miracle.

Miracles aren't congruent with science.

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.

I don't see the point in calling a multiverse "supernatural". How does that help at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 4:23 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 4:43 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7519
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 73 of 181 (697840)
04-30-2013 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by GDR
04-30-2013 4:00 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
There is a difference in saying that science is congruent with my theistic views as opposed to saying it supports them.

It would seem to me that science is irrelevant when it comes to your theistic views. It's like saying that Germ Theory is congruent with Zeus, or the Pauli Exclusion Principle is congruent with a belief in Leprechauns.

My point is simply that science does not mitigate against Christianity and can be used to inform it.

How does it inform it?

What I find more interesting is that christianity does not seem to inform science.

Well, actually there is evidence but just not enough to convince you. For one thing the Bible is evidence.

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

The Gospel writers in particular wrote out their accounts of events 2000 years ago.

Actually, they wrote out other people's accounts, and those accounts are claims, not evidence.

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.

Where in the theory of evolution does it describe how God interacts with the world? What evidence or experiments have demonstrated how this interaction takes place? What experiments have tested the interaction of God with our "hearts and minds"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 4:00 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 7:11 PM Taq has responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4477
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.7


Message 74 of 181 (697841)
04-30-2013 4:43 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by New Cat's Eye
04-30-2013 4:32 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
C S writes:

Miracles aren't congruent with science.

That was my point. It is a miracle for that reason.

C S writes:

I don't see the point in calling a multiverse "supernatural". How does that help at all?

I didn't call it supernatural. If you read my responses to Straggler I think I dealt with that there. If Heaven is an interlocking universe with its own laws then that's fine by me.

I have always understood that supernatural is something that occurs outside of our natural laws. It seems that the consensus is that supernatural means the absence of any laws. From that POV I'm ok with saying that God doesn't necessarily conform to that definition of supernatural. I can't see where it makes a difference from our perspective one way or the other.

I'm hoping to be a lot clearer on all this stuff in the next life.


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 72 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2013 4:32 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-30-2013 5:29 PM GDR has responded

    
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 181 (697842)
04-30-2013 5:29 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by GDR
04-30-2013 4:43 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
That was my point. It is a miracle for that reason.

But its one of the main tenets of christianity... That kinda screws up the whole "congruent with science" thing.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 4:43 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by GDR, posted 04-30-2013 7:14 PM New Cat's Eye has responded

  
Prev1234
5
67
...
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