Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


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 132 of 181 (698791)
05-09-2013 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by GDR
05-09-2013 10:32 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
GDR writes:
My general point is broader than that. All I'm saying is that science theorizes about other dimensions or universes.
It does indeed.
GDR writes:
It is just that Christianity talks about God being eternal and in some way being connected and even intervening with our world. It sounds very much like an interconnected universe and/or other dimensions of our own universe.
But does it? If you start from the unwavering assumption that God exists in some mysterious realm that is somehow "interconnected" then I suppose I can see how one might bend over backwards enough to start conflating Kaluza Klein Dimensions or Brane Worlds with some sort of notion of heaven.
But there is no more evidential justification for considering these same theoretical physics speculations as suggestive of the actual existence of Narnia (for example).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 10:32 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 7:36 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 134 of 181 (698914)
05-10-2013 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by GDR
05-09-2013 7:36 PM


Re: What is supernatural?
GDR writes:
A hundred years ago Christians believed that God was present with them and that God was eternal. It was taken on faith but with no real way of being able to conceive how it might be possible.
GDR writes:
However, now that science has opened up a world of other dimensions and other universes, we now at least have a way of picturing or comprehending how what we believe on faith might actually work.
Firstly - In order for this to be correct it is necessary for the things physicists are talking about (Kaluza Klein dimensions, Brane worlds etc.) to be comparable to the things theists are talking about (i.e. heaven). But beyond poetic phraseology in popular science articles (e.g. "an entire universe interwoven silently with our own" - for full quote see below) there isn't really any basis for such comparisons at all is there?
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.
Secondly - Christian notions of cosmology down the ages including the positioning of God's dwelling place are very very far from compatible with anything modern science is even remotely suggesting:
quote:
In the Old Testament the word shamayim represented both the sky/atmosphere, and the dwelling place of God. The raqia or firmament - the visible sky - was a solid inverted bowl over the earth, coloured blue from the heavenly ocean above it. Rain, snow, wind and hail were kept in storehouses outside the raqia, which had "windows" to allow them in - the waters for Noah's flood entered when the "windows of heaven" were opened.[30] Heaven extended down to and was coterminous with (i.e. it touched) the farthest edges of the earth (e.g. Deuteronomy 4:32); humans looking up from earth saw the floor of heaven, which was made of clear blue lapis-lazuli (Exodus 24:9-10), as was God's throne (Ezekiel 1:26)
Link
GDR writes:
Thank you for the kind words by the way.
Whatever our differences here (or elsewhere) - I meant every word.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by GDR, posted 05-09-2013 7:36 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 05-12-2013 12:00 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 141 of 181 (699009)
05-13-2013 8:43 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by GDR
05-12-2013 12:00 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
You seem to have created a rather subjectively appealing position for yourself. If theists put forward models that science refutes (e.g. Christian cosmological models) then it is just a case of humans putting forward answers to the best of their limited understanding at the time. But if theists suggest anything that can possibly be interpreted, no matter how tenuously, as being even remotely in accordance with even the most speculative of scientific theories then this is held up as some sort of theistic insight into the true nature of reality.
You seem to have created a view of looking at the world that provides a win-win situation for the theistically inclined. One where failure is ignored and ambiguity is confidently proclaimed as success.
GDR writes:
The only thing I would add is that it seems to me that if QM and relativity have proven anything they have at least proven that the basis of our existence is anything but intuitive, so who knows what the future holds in the science world.
Wherever science finds further questions to investigate theists see gaps in which to insert their beliefs.........

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by GDR, posted 05-12-2013 12:00 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by GDR, posted 05-14-2013 9:05 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 144 of 181 (699089)
05-14-2013 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by GDR
05-14-2013 9:05 AM


Re: What is supernatural?
GDR writes:
When science or historians come up with new information then I'm all ears when it comes to adjusting my thoughts around those beliefs. If there was proof that my fundamental beliefs are wrong then they would have to be adjusted as well.....
But I thought you believed in miracles? Feeding thousands of people with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish would violate conservation of energy and raising the dead would seem to be equally in violation of scientific evidence regarding decomposition and suchlike.
I really don't see how one can both believe in miracles and claim to be adjusting their beliefs to be in line with science.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by GDR, posted 05-14-2013 9:05 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2013 12:09 AM Straggler has replied
 Message 149 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 1:37 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 147 of 181 (699154)
05-15-2013 6:22 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by NoNukes
05-15-2013 12:09 AM


"God can do that"
NN writes:
God can do that
God can generally do whatever the theist in question requires God to be able to do in order to maintain their belief. For example.
NN writes:
We are not required to merely rely on conservation of energy or matter to deductively conclude that the Creation Week never happened. Instead we have objective evidence that the earth, moon, sun, etc are older than 6000 years old, and we have evidence of what actually did happen.
If one were to accept the existence of such evidence but still consider a biblically derived age of the Earth to be essential to one’s belief system then one would simply proclaim that God created the Earth/universe recently but with the appearance of age. Because - to quote you — God can do that. In fact this is indeed one of the creationist positions. Omphalism
NN writes:
GDR can accept that science has established that God, despite being omnipotent, simply did not intervene in the way described in Genesis. But GDR is not forced to accept the same thing regarding the feeding of the 5000.
GDR seems to take a three pronged approach.
  • If a theistic claim obviously contradicts scientific findings but the theistic claim in question IS NOT a deeply held belief (e.g. the age of the Earth derived from biblical inerrancy) then the theistic claim is wrong as a result of human error. Fair enough.
  • If a theistic claim obviously contradicts scientific findings and the theistic claim in question IS a deeply held belief (e.g. miracle performed by Jesus) then the theistic claim is correct on the basis that God can do that.
  • If any aspect of science can be put forward, no matter how speculatively or tenuously, as being ‘congruent’ with theistic claims (e.g. unperceived dimensions suggested by string theory being somehow related to an imperceptible heavenly realm) then this will be cited as supportive of the theistic claim in question.
    As an exercise in belief re-enforcement it’s quite obviously very successful.
    As a convincing argument for theism or an exercise in critical thinking — Well to put it politely — It leaves a lot to be desired.
    Edited by Straggler, : Formatting

  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 146 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2013 12:09 AM NoNukes has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2013 12:10 PM Straggler has replied

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


    Message 152 of 181 (699183)
    05-15-2013 3:12 PM
    Reply to: Message 148 by NoNukes
    05-15-2013 12:10 PM


    Re: "God can do that"
    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?
    NN writes:
    The problem with your logic/description is that you lump all scientific findings in the same boat.
    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.
    NN writes:
    I do not know everything he believes, but the particular examples of Jesus feeding a multitude and Creation week do not, in my opinion, fit the pattern you describe.
    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.
    NN writes:
    I don't believe very many people are Omphalists.
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 148 by NoNukes, posted 05-15-2013 12:10 PM NoNukes has not replied

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


    Message 153 of 181 (699184)
    05-15-2013 3:20 PM
    Reply to: Message 149 by GDR
    05-15-2013 1:37 PM


    Re: What is supernatural?
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 149 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 1:37 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 155 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 6:22 PM Straggler has replied

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


    (1)
    Message 157 of 181 (699217)
    05-15-2013 7:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 155 by GDR
    05-15-2013 6:22 PM


    Re: What is supernatural?
    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.
    GDR writes:
    All that science can say is that if they happen they are happening contrary to natural law.
    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........
    GDR writes:
    Science doesn't tell us that so-called miracles are impossible.
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 155 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 6:22 PM GDR has not replied

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


    Message 159 of 181 (699322)
    05-17-2013 1:31 PM
    Reply to: Message 158 by GDR
    05-15-2013 9:12 PM


    Re: What is supernatural?
    GDR writes:
    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.
    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....

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 158 by GDR, posted 05-15-2013 9:12 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 160 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 1:55 PM Straggler has replied

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


    Message 161 of 181 (699324)
    05-17-2013 2:07 PM
    Reply to: Message 160 by GDR
    05-17-2013 1:55 PM


    Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
    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?
    GDR writes:
    In the end I think that even you would agree that the existence of an intelligent designer is more likely the Dawkin's FSM.
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 160 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 1:55 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 164 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 3:42 PM Straggler has replied

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


    Message 173 of 181 (699387)
    05-18-2013 11:37 AM
    Reply to: Message 164 by GDR
    05-17-2013 3:42 PM


    Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
    Do your theistic beliefs require you to believe that natural laws and scientific principles were suspended or violated in order for your beliefs to be true?
    Do you maintain that you are adjusting your theistic beliefs to be in accordance with science?
    Straggler writes:
    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.
    GDR writes:
    Sure I can.
    But if you do this you haven't adjusted your theistic beliefs to be in accordance with science have you? You have instead modified the limits of science to be in accordance with your theistic beliefs.
    Surely you can see this.......?
    GDR writes:
    Science does not tell us that natural law cannot be suspended. There is no conflict.
    Then there is no claimed event that can said to be in conflict with science.
    Does the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken which turned into a cat before transforming into my son conflict with scientific findings and principles? If we invoke the suspension of natural laws throughout this process then, according to you, there is no conflict between this claim and scientific findings.
    This is madness.....

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 164 by GDR, posted 05-17-2013 3:42 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 175 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 12:43 PM Straggler has replied

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


    Message 176 of 181 (699395)
    05-18-2013 2:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 175 by GDR
    05-18-2013 12:43 PM


    Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
    GDR writes:
    Here is a definition of science from Webster’s:
    quote:
    : a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method
    b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena :
    Science is limited to the physical world and its phenomena, and the operation of general laws.
    Feeding 5,00 people and re-animated corpses are very much part of the physical world which can be detected with the 5 senses.
    What does our system of knowledge covering general laws as obtained and tested through the scientific method lead us to conclude about the physical possibility of feeding 5,000 people with a couple of fish and some bread?
    What does our system of knowledge covering general laws as obtained and tested through the scientific method lead us to conclude about the physical possibility of a 4 day old corpse being re-animated back to instant health?
    Straggler writes:
    Does the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken which turned into a cat before transforming into my son conflict with scientific findings and principles? If we invoke the suspension of natural laws throughout this process then, according to you, there is no conflict between this claim and scientific findings.
    GDR writes:
    Yes because if that were the case it falls outside the Webster’s definition of science.
    Are you happy with an approach to scientific consistency where the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken is deemed to be consistent with "general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".....?
    Can you see why others might be less..accommodating....?

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 175 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 12:43 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 178 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 6:08 PM Straggler has replied

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


    Message 179 of 181 (699526)
    05-21-2013 8:05 AM
    Reply to: Message 178 by GDR
    05-18-2013 6:08 PM


    Re: Scientific Findings Vs Theistic Beliefs
    GDR writes:
    I agree that according to normal law those things can't happen.
    When someone claims that they are willing to adjust their beliefs based on scientific findings the clear expectation is that they will abandon beliefs which contradict scientific findings.
    But with regard to the events in question you have not adjusted your theistic beliefs. Instead you have simply circumvented scientific findings by applying a catch-all-get-out-clause that could be applied to literally any claim at all.
    Your approach allows you to pick and choose between the conclusions of science and the claims of theism based on whichever gives the answer you find most subjectively plausible with regard to any specific claimed event.
    This is not the same as adopting scientific conclusions over theistic claims in the way originally implied.
    Straggler writes:
    Are you happy with an approach to scientific consistency where the claim that my wife gave birth to a chicken is deemed to be consistent with "general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method".....?
    GDR writes:
    I didn't say that.
    The exact same suspension of natural laws and scientific principles you are putting forward to justify ressurections and the feeding of the 5,000 as having no conflict with scientific findings can be applied equally to a human giving birth to a chicken as having no conflict with scientific findings.
    The only difference is that you are prepared to invoke the suspension of natural laws and scientific principles for things you find theistically appealing but not for things that you don't.
    GDR writes:
    I think that it is reasonable to say that the number of people who believe something is something of an indication on the degree of probability.
    Half of Americans believe that God created man in a single day about 10,000 years ago. More Americans believe that president Obama is a Muslim than believe in evolution.
    I think it very often unreasonable (indeed potentially quite dangerous) to treat the popularity of a belief in and of itself as being indicative of it's veracity.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 178 by GDR, posted 05-18-2013 6:08 PM GDR has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 180 by GDR, posted 05-21-2013 2:05 PM Straggler has not replied
     Message 181 by GDR, posted 05-29-2013 2:14 AM Straggler has 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