The nature of the universe, whether God(s) exist, and how we define them

Phoenyx said:
I actually think there's some evidence of a higher organizing principle in our universe. A combination of evolution and synchronicity. As to evidence that there's more than one universe, I'm not sure. I remember hearing the theory, but don't remember whether there was any evidence for it.
Click to expand...

Motto of Postmodern Physics: "If It's Weird, It's Wise"

There has to be a mother universe. Without it, the phenomena such as the Big Bang, Black Holes, Quantum Leaps, and Entanglement can't be explained rationally. Postclassical physics, by not looking for a deeper explanation, has the intellectual level of a superstition.
 
Phoenyx said:
Maybe there are many other universes with different constants and we're just in one with the constants we have?
Click to expand...

It Created Our Constants the Same Way Humans Inherit Their DNA

The maximum velocity of the universe that created ours is c squared, traveling under one of our light-years in three minutes.
 
Phoenyx said:
I think it's ironic that Einstein would be against it, considering he was Jewish and also Pantheist, by his own admission. Like you, I think it's a good thing that these different arenas cross pollinate, as it were. When any arena gets too rigid and refuses to consider ideas from another, I think it's not a good thing.
Click to expand...

Specialization Is a Straitjacket

On another embee, I pointed out that etymologists could locate the roots of "one, two, many" (fingernail, point, hand) if they knew a little anthropology. And the cross-field doesn't have to academic; knowing about hunting tells us the root of dog, "pointer."
 
Yakuda said:
Incorrect

Two reasons. First to note that religion is not incompatible with science and two that with all his knowledge Fr. Lemaitre did not abandon his belief in God. That's the arena of intellectual spiritual sloths.
Click to expand...

We Can't Falsify Something That Is Already False

Only a god could create a Big Bang, which is impossible otherwise. So the priest wanted to give us some astounding spectacle to keep the faith.
 
Yakuda said:
This is akin to using the word you want to define in the definition. So you're saying the evidence that the universe has always existed is that the universe exists. The universe exists therefore it has always existed. I exist therefore I will always exist. Excellent
Click to expand...

"God Wouldn't Let Us Believe in Him If He Didn't Exist" Petitio Principii
 
The Sage of Main Street said:
We Can't Falsify Something That Is Already False
Click to expand...

That isn't how falsifiability works. Falsifiability is simply the ability to prove something false if it is false. So if something is known to be false then it would seem that it already has been falsified.

Falsifiability does NOT mean that something is false, but rather that it is possible to test it and determine if it is false.

Only a god could create a Big Bang
Click to expand...


How do you know this? Couldn't it be a super-advanced transdimensional alien? Couldn't the universe just be eternal but go through cycles of big bang-big contraction-big bang-big contraction, etc.?
 
Perry Phimosis said:
It's fascinating to me that you are too dense to get my point.

I have read the bible, cover to cover, yes.

The reason I ask is because the ONLY reason you think that "Let there be...." in Hebrew is because someone told you it was. There is nothing about the Big Bang that in ANY WAY implies the existence of the Abrahamic God anymore than it implies the existence of Zeus, Aharu Mazda, or Bobo the Transdimensional Waiter Who Creates Universes.

(Get it now???)
Click to expand...

Unless you ask a witness!
 
Yakuda said:
Correct AND a Catholic priest. I mentioned that because there are some who aren't quite savvy enough to realize that faith and science arent at odds with each other

See what I mean?
Click to expand...

The war between science and religion is largely an invention of extremists of the 19th and 20th century. It's a rhetorical invention of both fundamentalist holly rollers and militant atheists because it creates a profitable strawman one can build into their writing, journalistic, or preaching career.

I worked an entire professional life around scientists, and I can't ever remember when religion was ever brought up in either a degrading way, or a scientifically relevant way.

People understood that science and religion are asking different questions. It wouldn't have raised any eyebrows in the science community if a scientist was an atheist, an agnostic, a Catholic, a Jew, or a Muslim. It simply wouldn't be viewed as relevant to the scientific profession.
 
Cypress said:
The war between science and religion is largely an invention of extremists of the 19th and 20th century. It's a rhetorical invention of both fundamentalist holly rollers and militant atheists because it creates a profitable strawman one can build into their writing, journalistic, or preaching career.

I worked an entire professional life around scientists, and I can't ever remember when religion was ever brought up in either a degrading way, or a scientifically relevant way.

People understood that science and religion are asking different questions. It wouldn't have raised any eyebrows in the science community if a scientist was an atheist, an agnostic, a Catholic, a Jew, or a Muslim. It simply wouldn't be viewed as relevant to the scientific profession.
Click to expand...

Great post. I couldn't agree more that the conflict between religion and science is contrived.
 
Yakuda said:
Great post. I couldn't agree more that the conflict between religion and science is contrived.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say totally contrived, but definitely embellished and exaggerated by those who see some rhetorical profit from it in their political, journalistic, or ministry careers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top