|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is String Theory Supernatural? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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: 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: Link GDR writes: Thank you for the kind words by the way. Whatever our differences here (or elsewhere) - I meant every word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.........
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
GDR writes: Here is a definition of science from Webster’s:
quote: 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....?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 91 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024