Is String Theory Supernatural?

That is part of the problem.

First, there is the "innocent" definition of supernatural that includes deities and spirits of one kind or another. This is the definition that is usually produced first before the implications of the definition are fully brought to light. Why is that? People want to claim that supernatural deities/spirits manifest themselves in the natural world. This would mean that the supernatural is actually part of the natural world, and their effect on the natural world can fall under the purview of the scientific method. This is a problem. Since this definition of the supernatural would produce evidence, and there isn't any evidence, you have painted yourself into a corner.

Hence, the second definition for supernatural. It is now redefined as something that can never be evidenced because . . . well, you really want to believe in the supernatural and you don't want anyone questioning that belief. The supernatural is purposefully made to be unfalsifiable and incapable of being evidenced. The supernatural doesn't need to be defined in such a way, but to maintain a belief in the supernatural this definition must be used. Carl Sagan's essay about the dragon in his garage is a good description of what I am talking about:

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

When the supernatural is defined in such a way that it is equivalent to the non-existent, then why claim that the supernatural exists in the first place?

The processes that produced our universe would fall under the definition of natural because they are a part of the natural world.

Think of it this way. Could we decide that the natural world is limited by the Earth and it's atmosphere, beginning with its creation? Would this make the Sun and the Sun's gravity a supernatural force that moves the Earth about in a circular path through a supernatural realm? If not, then why limit the natural to our universe, and the start of our universe?

We would rightly say that the forces and objects that exist outside of the Earth are also natural, and their effects on the Earth can be understood as natural. So why not the same with the forces and processes that exist outside of our universe that governed its creation, and may very well be effecting it right now?

The question is why should we limit the "natural" to the observable universe? That is like limiting the natural to our planet which would make the Sun a supernatural object.

Also, if string theory is true then there is no deity involved. That would seem to remove a very important leg from the definition of supernatural. I really doubt that people will want to include machine like and mindless processes in the definition of supernatural. Just look at how upset people become when we want to replace direct special creation with a mechanistic process like evolution.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Then show us the science that supports these claims:

quote:

---

Let’s assume that God lives in a parallel universe that somehow interlocks with our universe in a way that is not directly perceivable to us. God is responsible for the existence of life in our universe and has a long term plan for us. Part of that plan is that we are to have hearts that are genuinely kind, merciful, loving and fair. Another part of the plan is that our universe is not going to last forever and so that at the end of time there will be a resurrection into new bodily form for life in a renewed universe where the two parallel universes come together as one, where the hearts of all will be kind, merciful, loving and fair.

Because these two universes are interconnected God is able to subtly speak to the hearts, minds and imaginations of humans, but again however we are able to reject His influence. However, in the middle of time He chooses one man, namely Jesus, to perfectly embody His heart for us. Through Him He is able to bring about miracles that foreshadow the renewed world that He has planned for us, by bringing His healing and love directly to the world through the man Jesus. Mankind rejects God and His messenger and puts Him to death. However, God demonstrates that death is not the last word and does for Jesus what is planned for all of this creation at the end of time and resurrects Him.

---

Then what did you mean when you said:

"My theistic views are congruent with science and for that matter, as I’ve 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.

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.

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.

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.

What's the difference?

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

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?

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.

How does it inform it?

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

The Bible is the claim, not the evidence.

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

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"?

What science informed you that God used evolutionary processes? I am unaware of any scientific study that has shown a deity being part of evolutionary processes.

Why do you immediately assume that some aspects of Christianity are unverifiable? Why immediately assume that the supernatural is unverifiable through scientific means?

It has authors making claims of what they did.

What scientific studies have shown that God interacted with the world as a first cause for evolutionary processes?

It is the result of whatever the evidence indicates. If there is no evidence then "I don't know" is the correct answer for the time being.

As I stated before, there were atheists before Darwin, and there were after. Right now we do not know how universes are produced, and there are still atheists. We don't know the specifics of how life started on Earth, or how life could start. There are still atheists.

Then why try to continually attach science to these beliefs?

And if the world was created by an invisible pink unicorn then ice cream is made of spirits. I can make stuff up, too.

Why bring science into it at all? Why not just say, "These are my beliefs, and I have no evidence for them." I just don't see how unevidenced beliefs are compatible with science.

I agree. I, as an atheist, have beliefs. For example, I believe that helping out my fellow human beings is a worthy cause and worth my time. I believe that Delta Blues is far better than Chicago Blues. I believe that desert landscapes are extremely beautiful. However, at no time do I feel the need to say that my beliefs are compatible with science. That's the part that I don't get.

Why bring science into it at all? It starts with unevidenced beliefs, does not touch anything that can be considered evidence, and then ends on unevidenced beliefs. It reads to me like an attempt to add legitimacy to your beliefs where none exists.

This constant vassilation between evidence for God and God can never be evidenced is a bit much.

They are evidence that people can write down stories. That is not what we are talking about.

I am unaware of a scientific account by which God has dictated anything. Again, you are trying to cozy your beliefs up next to science in the hopes that the legitimacy of science will rub off onto your beliefs. Doesn't work that way.

My atheism has nothing to do with science. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. That's it. Science has to do with a methodical process of determining how the the universe works. Two different things. There were atheists before modern science existed, before we understood the things we now understand.

So what scientific studies have demonstrated that God dictated what is found in the Bible?

Nor do I find anything in a Mary Kay brochure that makes me doubt my atheism, but I don't go around saying that my atheism is compatible with Mary Kay products.

So why science? Why do you feel the need to compare your beliefs to science?

Then why make the following claim?

"I am not using science to legitimize my beliefs, I am using science to help form them."

You claim that you are using science to form your beliefs, but when asked for the science you claim there is none.

I agree. Where we differ is in your claims that you are using science to form your beliefs.

Around we go.

What scientific studies demonstrate that God used anything?

Then you are not using science to form your beliefs as you claimed earlier.

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.