0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
The multiverse "theory" is not a theory. It's conjecture.A scientific theory has to be testable.
Always worth a read IMO:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Anthropic_coincidences [Links inactive - To make links active and clickable, login or click here to register]That is all 
Magic? There is the idea of self existence in the universe as is, in that space, time, matter, all exist maybe from a build up, but an oxymoron, even before that, and before that still, there was something. There was an origin and another continuously, at least maybe. Something has to self exist, rather that something coming from nothing.
David Cooper: I don't find this differentiation to be meaningful. How many particles can we simulate in computers today? A few hundred thousand, perhaps a few million (all depending of course on the complexity of your particle system). Might we wager a guess at how many particles there might be in the universe? We aren't even sure at what scale we'll find the smallest such particle, assuming we can see below the Planck scale. Regardless of increases in computing capacity, simulations will only ever look like weak analogues to the real thing.
And what if we find that the reductionist view of our universe breaks down in the future, as might be the case if a theory of God turns out to hold water?
We have lots of words for stuff like that in my opinion - hypothesis, idea, notion, interpretation ... no need to misuse a word with a useful narrow definition.
You can note from the Wikiquote above that some scientists only require a theory to have explanatory aspects and not predictive power and testability. We have lots of words for stuff like that in my opinion - hypothesis, idea, notion, interpretation ... no need to misuse a word with a useful narrow definition.
You're right, I was a bit careless with my words. The title's been changed.
Where are you getting these from? You say it as if you've gained some personal access to absolute truth. It's one thing to say there's no evidence for God, but your statements are...strange.
If you think people like me who ascribe to a religion are delusional for holding views on a being like God with some level of certainty, then here's a friendly reminder: your statements are awful religious sounding.
Anyway, this will only end up in a discussion about religion specifics and religious logic, something I'm trying hard to avoid. I've had enough of these discussions and arguments in the New Theories section of TNS (a thread called Is There a God? I believe) from way back.
I'm really only interested at the moment with anyone's feedback with how a theory of God can be made to "work with" established science.
Perhaps we should just choose to worship Aldus Huxley's God, Henry.
Namaan the perfect "text" that you describe does and has always existed it is to be found all around is in the properties of the universe itself. Most modern theologians are totally happy with the "two books" approach to theology. The first book whatever written human wisdom and myth exists in their particular religion. The second is the book of nature, life, the universe and everything written all around us. As shown to us by science. It is only groups of restricted closed sects that reject the supreme second book over the first.
The vast progress achieved through science has pushed religion into the background over the last one hundred years because it tends to insist on outdated concepts and the only voices that are heard are the voices of extremist cranks getting it a bad name. The re-examination of the basic metaphors in most of the world's main religions and their re-statement in the context of the modern scientific world and not that originated in pre scientific dogma. Could create an environment in which a new sort of religion can grow and reinvigorate the big society where we accept that although we are distinct individuals we all depend totally on each other and the rest of the world for our basic sustenance.
The answer to the revised question is now I believe a clear no. With the follow up statement that all current and possible future scientific knowledge gan be fitted into the concept of the major moderate religions as a way to define how we should behave towards each other and the rest of the universe by the reinterpretation of the myths, legends and parables that support the basis for behaviour in the religion.
I moved this topic since it was never really a science question about physics and astronomy and its also veered into religion and the philosophy of science. This forum will give people a chance to respond with more freedom than in one of the science Q&A fora.
Quote from: JP on 24/01/2012 13:01:52I moved this topic since it was never really a science question about physics and astronomy and its also veered into religion and the philosophy of science. This forum will give people a chance to respond with more freedom than in one of the science Q&A fora.That's really too bad, but I don't come on TNS to just chat.
Others may feel free to discuss this amongst themselves. And you aren't wrong that a theory of God must necessarily be a theory of everything. But that doesn't at all help me. The whole point was if the theory of God is the theory of everything, the problem is the scientific establishment, as exemplified by the move of this forum, isn't able to take such a theory seriously by the inherent nature of the discussion; hence the idea can't progress beyond just chatting.
You keep using the term "theory of god", but no theory is presented.
The point is it seems to me that it should be possible to create a scientific theory/conjecture of God, not that any of you need to be necessarily interested in it. For example, if I'm not mistaken, there's no entity called "evolution" that we can test directly. We create a model that fits the theory, make predictions from the model, and test whether the predictions pan out; that they do quite nicely in the case of evolution of course.So a common religious position is that the evidence of God is in his exacting design of the universe. So, for example, one might say that a scientific discussion on this might take the form of considering the various forms and occurrences that this design takes throughout the universe. I'm not saying any of you should have some sort of moral responsibility to build such a theory or take part in such discussions, rather I only mean to flesh out for myself and whoever else might be interested in the subject matter the means to approach a theory of God in context to established science.
Tangentially, I saw a car with a bumper-sticker the other day that read; "Dog is my co-pilot."
First though, one question Why is it that the whole concept of God is a fundamentally irrational idea?Definition of God. A conscious awareness that chose to set in motion the creation of everything we call reality.
I thought this thread must have been deleted as there was nothing in the original subforum saying it had been moved - I only found it here because I looked in on the off chance that it had been mentioned, but here it is.