Is String Theory Supernatural?

Yes, but that's why science is science - it's set up to remove individual subjectivity and bias. As you cherry pick your science and jemmy it into your beliefs, you're actively seeking out bias and grasping it with both hands. You have lost any critical, skeptical capacity you had because of what you believe. I don't think it's remotely possible for any discovery in science to change your mind because you've found an effective way of accommodating it into your beliefs. For example, you ignore the fact that there is no evidence at all for prayers being answered or spiritual healing, yet it's a core belief of Christianity that God intervenes in our world.You can't explain in any way, the concept of God beingin all places simultaneously but accept the belief anyway. No doubt QM will be levered into place in due course.What scientific - or other - 'reason' would make you change your mind?
(That's a really easy question for an atheist to answer btw).

Where scientific knowledge and theistic belief come into conflict one can either go with the science or find a way of justifying the assertion that "God can do that". If the "God can do that" option is chosen then one cannot legitimately claim to be adjusting their theistic beliefs to be in line with science.Surely this is both obvious and inarguable? No. I am simply pointing out that if faced with a conflict between scientific findings and thestic beliefs choosing the "God can do that" option involves a denial of science.Whilst there is an obvious difference in terms of degree and scale between a full on omphalist and a believer who limits their science-exceptions to the odd miracle here and there both are denying the scientific conclusion because it conflicts with their theistic belief. Both are rejecting the science and embracing the "God can do that" option. They both involve rejecting the science and embracing the "God can do that" option. Beyond that it is a differnce of scale rather than principle. So what? If not many people believed in the feeding of the 5,000 or resurrecting dead bodies would that make GDR's specific beliefs regarding these particular stories somehow more contradictory of scientific findings?I fail to see what bearing the number of believers in any given such proposition has on anything here.

If there are any instances where your beliefs conflict with scientific knowledge and you have to invoke words like "miracle" to explain these then you cannot legitimately claim to have adjusted your theistic beliefs to be compatible with scientific knowledge.Sure - Your particular exceptions to scientific knowledge (the odd dead body ressurrected here and there, a miraculous quantity of calories derived from a few fish and loaves etc. etc.) are pretty small scale in comparison to those invoked by hardcore creationists.But this is a difference of scale rather than a difference of principle. In principle you are happy to reject a scientifically compatible conclusion in favour of a theistic belief.

Actually that isn't true. Yes, as science introduces new evidence I am prepared to change my views. The atheists on this forum are always being critical of the theists who hang on to their views when the run counter to sciences and now you criticize me because I agree that science does have something to tell us about the world. There's no pleasing you guys, which I agree isn't my objective anyway. Sure there is no objective evidence that prayers are answered but it doesn't mean they aren't. That isn't a question that I would expect science to answer. No Nukes did a great job of addressing that. You might have a look at his posts. Well if you read back I have already done that by suggesting that God's dimension involves multiple time dimensions as a speculative theory. I don't think that there is a scientific principle that would make me change my mind because science answers different question that what Theology does. That does not mean that my theology in anyway limits what science has to tell me.

Science doesn't tell us that so-called miracles are impossible. All that science can say is that if they happen they are happening contrary to natural law.

It depends on what it is. If miracles are facts then would not science attempt to explain them?If science show them to be in violation of the laws of physics and impossible. Then one must either believe what science says is true or what ones beliefs say are true.You can not have it both ways.You must accept the belief in miracles based on faith alone and a concious individual choice to accept miracles without any bases in fact. Because once you begin to look for facts; they are cold hard things that poke holes in faith. At least that has been my experiance. I can not for the life of me will myself to believe something that is dimetrically opposed to the knowlege of the world as we know it. My faith and belief in miracles has slowly evaporated. I salute your beliefs and your ability to conjoin them with scientific knowlege.

Scientifically speaking a couple of fish and a loaf of bread could not possibly provide 5,000+ people with enough calories to meaningfully constitute being "fed".Scientifically speaking it's desperately unlikely that a Jewish carpenter was born from a virgin 2,000 years ago.Scientifically speaking the aforementioned Jewish carpenter almost certainly did not have the ability to revive 4 day old rotting corpses to bring them back to full health.And so on and so forth.If you believe that the above events did occur then your theistic beliefs are overriding your scientific knowledge. Therefore you cannot meaningfully claim to be adjusting your theistic beliefs to be consistent with scientific knowledge. Actually science can say that these sorts of stories and the reasons people need to believe them are more likely to be rooted in aspects of human psychology than the result of such events actually occurring. If one were to adopt the scientifically consistent position this would be the stance one would take........ Well if we are going to invoke "God can do that" or the unknown laws of unknown universes then absolutely anything at all no matter how absurd or scientifically illiterate can be given the meaningless monicker of being described as "possible". But I really don't see how this helps with regard to the fact that your theistic beliefs are in conflict with scientific knowledge.

I suppose it could, but how do you expect it to do that? Science doesn't say it's impossible. Science can only say that in order for it to happen that natural laws have to be suspended. Thanks, but just for the record I have not come to this all on my own. My beliefs are consistent with the likes of C S Lewis, N T Wright, Tim Keller, John Polkinghorne, Francis Collins and John Lennox. These are all highly educated people with Polkinghorne being a world renowned physicist, Collins a world renowned biologist and Lennox a world renowned mathematician. N T Wright is probably the foremost Christian scholar we have today and Lewis was one of the greatest Christian philosophers we have ever had. I am actually pretty orthodox and certainly far from unique.

You could say this about literally any claim at all. Following this logic would mean that any claim about any event (no matter how absurd or scientifically illiterate) was not in conflict with science.I believe in perpetual motion machines. This is entirely compatible with scientific findings because it merely requires the suspension of natural laws.I believe dead bodies can be re-animated back to life. This is entirely compatible with scientific findings because it merely requires the suspension of natural laws.I believe that a pig spouted wings, did a loop the loop and then vanished in a puff of smoke. This belief is entirely compatible with scientific findings because it merely requires the suespension of natural laws.And so on and so forth....

Absolutely, so in order to come to come to any conclusions we have to consider other avenues of thought such as philosophy or theology. In the end I think that even you would agree that the existence of an intelligent designer is more likely the Dawkin's FSM.In the end there isn't even absolute certainty with even the most fundamental aspects of science either. Science can tell us reliably what the speed of light is because the measurements have always been consistent, but it can't tell us that tomorrow the speed of light won't have changed.

Do you think that invoking the suspension of natural laws makes the claim that a winged pig did a loop the loop and then vanished in a puff of smoke any more or less in conflict with scientific findings?Why do you think invoking the suspension of natural laws makes the resurrection of a 4 day old corpse or the feeding of the 5,000 any more or less in conflict with scientific findings? Whether we say that an intelligent designer is bringing bodies back to life or feeding thousands of people with some fish and bread that contain only a few hundred calories or whether we say that a Flying Spaghetti Monster is ultimately responsible for such events has absolutely no bearing on whether these claims conflict with science or not.If you believe in events for which the suspension of natural law is required, regardless of which entity you invoke as the cause of such events, then you cannot say that you are adjusting your theistic beliefs to be in accordance with science.Once you start suspending natural laws in order to maintain theistic beliefs your theistic belifs are conflicting with science. Obviously.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Aaarrrrgghhhhh!

Very philosophical with theological inferences Tangle.

I'm not saying that I don't believe that God through Jesus suspended natural laws, (as we understand natural law), in order to perform miracles. I believe that He did but it wouldn't change My fundamental Christian beliefs if I didn't believe that He fed the 5000 or raised Lazarus back to his earthly life. My faith is not dependant on an inerrant Bible.From my point of view the one essential miracle of Christianity is the bodily resurrection of Jesus. (Lazarus was not a resurrection.) In the resurrection of Jesus we see the start of what God intends for all of creation. If I didn't believe that I would become a theist who believes that there is an intelligence who cares about whether or not I conduct my life morally in the way that I can best understand morality at all. However, for a variety of reasons I am genuinely very sure that the resurrection of Jesus was an historical event, and yet at the same time I understand the scepticism of those who think as you do. Sure I can. The suspension of natural law is outside the purview of science. I don't look to science to give me advice on morality but I do look to science to tell about the process that God used that led to me. I disagree. Science studies natural law. Natural law is not science. Science does not tell us that natural law cannot be suspended. There is no conflict.

Of course there is a conflict. Natural Law is just that: law. It holds at all times in all situations. That is why it is law. If it was not then such a phenomena would be a dependant variable not a law.The reason we call them laws is precisely because we have never seen them violated. To assume your god can cause such violations becomes just another article of faith of the superstition that conflicts with the reality we see around us.ABE: I assume we're talking the laws of nature as in the physical laws and not the Natural Law as in human morality and the quest for justice.Edited by AZPaul3, : gee guess.