|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is String Theory Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Is String Theory Supernatural? I don't know because I don't know what supernatural is. If you mean "above" or "outside" of nature (i.e. our universe), then I can see how it could work as a description. But if you mean "magic", then no, I wouldn't say string theory is supernatural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Then how can you claim to believe in the supernatural? It usually works in getting the point across when you're talking about gods n'stuff. But if we're looking to see what does and doesn't fit within the description, then I'm afraid we're awfully short on data to be making any determinations.
If there is a multiverse why is "nature" limited to our universe? Its just semantics. It wasn't meant to be proscriptive. People talk of "natural" as being a part of our universe, so if they want to talk about a multiverse that is above our outside of our universe, then I can see how the word "supernatural" would work. But that wouldn't necessarily be prescribing it as magic.
Do you know what "magic" is? Do you believe in magic? Don't know, don't care.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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'.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
C S writes:
Not at all. It is a miracle because it only contravenes the natural laws that we experience. But its one of the main tenets of christianity... That kinda screws up the whole "congruent with science" thing. **sigh** I don't think you're getting it. If it contravenes the natural laws that we experience then it is not congruent with science.
quote: lol wut?
When science talks about other dimensions and universes then we have no comprehension of what laws if any might be part of another form of existence. You could use that on any crazy thing that you want to believe in. Is Puff the magic dragon real? Well we don't know because science talks about other dimensions. Come on now, GDR. We don't really live in the Matrix. There's a real world out there and science has a pretty good handle on it. The miracles that happened in the Bible are not congruent with science. Otherwise, they wouldn't be miracles. String, and Multiverse, Theory do not give you a wide open hole to pull any old belief out of and call it congruent with science because "there could be anything". The better point with the congruency with science is that you can use science to better understand some aspects of your faith. But there's no good reason to argue that there are not any aspects of your faith that are not congruent with science. Besides, that just turns god's miracles into cheap parlor tricks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I keep answering that and you keep asking it. The answer is none. Then you are not using science to form your beliefs as you claimed earlier. I think you could be a little more fair here. Let's say he comes to a belief that god created man. Then, through science, he learns that man evolved over time. Then he modifies his belief to include evolution in god's creative process. That would be using science to form his beliefs even though science doesn't include god in the process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
As you admit above, he came to the belief that god created man before learning about the science. The belief is that god created man, and nowhere in that belief do we find a reference to science nor a scientific source as the foundation of that belief. The belief exists independent of any scientific study or theory. The belief is just tacked on to the scientific theory. Nowhere does the scientific theory lend itself to the belief. But he's still using science to form... wait... what does he mean by "form" the belief? If we're talking about creating the belief, then sure, you're right. But I was thinking he meant that he's using the science to modify the belief.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Form? Who said "form?" What I read from GDR was "inform." Taq said 'form' in the Message 98 that I originally replied to. In the message that that is a reply to, GDR said:
quote: So I'm right as to what he meant. He's even cheered my message. I haven't looked back to see if that's what he has actually "said", tho. Taq writes, in Message 104:
So what science informed GDR that God used evolution to create humanity? As he's admitted, there isn't any. Science hasn't provided the information for God. Its just "forming" it. ABE:
[aside] Damn CS, the more I see that avatar the more intreguing it becomes. Good show, man.
[/aside] Oh, yes. Thank you. There's a lot of meaning there for me. Is there an "avatar" thread? Care to start one? I've seen some doozies Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024