Could A Good God Permit So Much Suffering?

Einstein's theories, and those of other physicists, have often been proved correct. Those theories were completed based upon facts and by making logical predictions.

Not my field, and I'm pretty shitty at higher math, but gravitational lensing and the speed of light as a physical limit are two good ones.
Yep, faith and belief can be based on good evidence. For some reason we still don't understand why mathematics seemingly underlies the fabric of reality. The theoretical physicist Eugene Signed called it the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics'. Nonetheless, physicists have good reason to hold the conviction that the behavior of matter and energy is ultimately intelligible, even if we don't understand the cause.

Nobody really knows what dark matter and dark energy are, and the search for supersymmetry has been largely fruitless, But researchers keep investigating because they have faith these mysteries are rationally intelligible.

500 years after Isaac Newton, we still don't really understand gravity at its most fundamental level. That's why we've been searching for decades for a quantum theory of gravity. That is based on a belief that physical behavior is ultimately intelligible, if not the ultimate cause.

100 years after the quantum mechanics framework was developed, we still don't really understand what quantum mechanics means. Thats is why there are decades-long ongoing debates about the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds hypothesis, and the hidden variables hypothesis. The search continues because we have faith that there are rationally intelligible explanations.

Einstein himself spent the last 30 years of his life fruitlessly searching for a grand unification theory, because he believed that at its core the explanation of physical reality would be elegant and rationally intelligible.
 
Although his quote about the philosophical question of suicide is often quoted and that he often rejected many of religious views (he was French and raised Catholic), I'm not certain he was a "when you're dead, you're dead" atheist.
You're right.
Some of the prominent atheists had death bed conversions (rumor has it that Sartre did), or they were cultural Christians beneath their public rejection of religion. Living in a European Christian civilization, a lot of them naturally were inculcated by a New Testament ethical ethos - Richard Dawkins for example.
 
You're right.
Some of the prominent atheists had death bed conversions (rumor has it that Sartre did), or they were cultural Christians beneath their public rejection of religion. Living in a European Christian civilization, a lot of them naturally were inculcated by a New Testament ethical ethos - Richard Dawkins for example.
Deathbed conversions are always interesting to me. For the most part, it seems there's more a rejection of religious dogma and hypocrisy from religious leaders than the rejection of believing there is more to life than what is in front of our noses.

There's no evidence of existence beyond the mortal so it's a matter of faith. We can ponder the mysteries of the Universe and how it all came to be, but it seems the only thing that can be known is what's inside the Universe, not what's outside. Anyone who says "I know what God wants" is either a liar or nuts.

If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; if God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.
Thomas Szasz
The Second Sin (1973) ‘Schizophrenia’
 
Deathbed conversions are always interesting to me. For the most part, it seems there's more a rejection of religious dogma and hypocrisy from religious leaders than the rejection of believing there is more to life than what is in front of our noses.

There's no evidence of existence beyond the mortal so it's a matter of faith. We can ponder the mysteries of the Universe and how it all came to be, but it seems the only thing that can be known is what's inside the Universe, not what's outside. Anyone who says "I know what God wants" is either a liar or nuts.

If you talk to God, you are praying; if God talks to you, you have schizophrenia. If the dead talk to you, you are a spiritualist; if God talks to you, you are a schizophrenic.
Thomas Szasz
The Second Sin (1973) ‘Schizophrenia’
but morality is rational.
 
Yep, faith and belief can be based on good evidence. For some reason we still don't understand why mathematics seemingly underlies the fabric of reality. The theoretical physicist Eugene Signed called it the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics'. Nonetheless, physicists have good reason to hold the conviction that the behavior of matter and energy is ultimately intelligible, even if we don't understand the cause.

Nobody really knows what dark matter and dark energy are, and the search for supersymmetry has been largely fruitless, But researchers keep investigating because they have faith these mysteries are rationally intelligible.

500 years after Isaac Newton, we still don't really understand gravity at its most fundamental level. That's why we've been searching for decades for a quantum theory of gravity. That is based on a belief that physical behavior is ultimately intelligible, if not the ultimate cause.

100 years after the quantum mechanics framework was developed, we still don't really understand what quantum mechanics means. Thats is why there are decades-long ongoing debates about the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds hypothesis, and the hidden variables hypothesis. The search continues because we have faith that there are rationally intelligible explanations.

Einstein himself spent the last 30 years of his life fruitlessly searching for a grand unification theory, because he believed that at its core the explanation of physical reality would be elegant and rationally intelligible.
It's Spirit,beyond the Laws of Physics!
 
Expand on what you mean?
Sheep have faith in their shepherd but no common sense.

5jza67.jpg
 
but a priest in a cathedral is telling science stories, of course.

you're just a cynical theocratic douche-nozzle.
I don't take math classes from people who never had calculus or trigonometry.

Joel Osteen is a college dropout and I've seen no evidence he has a formal seminary education.

His grift is in being telegenic.
 
I don't take math classes from people who never had calculus or trigonometry.

Joel Osteen is a college dropout and I've seen no evidence he has a formal seminary education.

His grift is in being telegenic.
but catholic priests are rational?

you're fucking stupid.
 
but catholic priests are rational?

you're fucking stupid.
Reading comprehension problems?
I didn't say anything about Catholics. Not a word.
There are numerous Protestant ministers, vicars, and pastors who graduated college, obtained a rigorous divinity school education, and are intelligent rational people.
 
Reading comprehension problems?
I didn't say anything about Catholics. Not a word.
There are numerous Protestant ministers, vicars, and pastors who graduated college, obtained a rigorous divinity school education, and are intelligent rational people.
you're a natrual born inquisitor with the personality of a nazi.
 
Yep, faith and belief can be based on good evidence. For some reason we still don't understand why mathematics seemingly underlies the fabric of reality.
You still don't know what 'reality' means, Sybil. It does NOT mean 'Universal Truth'. Go study phenomenology.

Mathematics is simply a closed functional system. Like a game, it is completely defined by a set of rules (called axioms). Those rules were written by Man. There is nothing magick about writing a set of rules.

Mathematics is not about any physical anything, except for a few theories of science that have been transcribed into mathemtics. Numbers are not physical things. They are conceptual things.
The theoretical physicist Eugene Signed called it the 'unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics'.
Whether he did nor not is immaterial. Mathematics itself is based on reason.
Nonetheless, physicists have good reason to hold the conviction that the behavior of matter and energy is ultimately intelligible, even if we don't understand the cause.
Matter is not intelligence. Energy is not intelligence.
Nobody really knows what dark matter and dark energy are,
But they do, since they defined the terms.

The phrase 'dark matter' refers to a mass that is undetectable by looking at it.
The phrase 'dark energy' refers to an energy source that is undetectable by looking at it.

and the search for supersymmetry has been largely fruitless,
'Super-symmetry' is not a search. It's a non-falsifiable theory. It is a religion.
But researchers keep investigating because they have faith these mysteries are rationally intelligible.
A mystery is not intelligence, Sybil.
500 years after Isaac Newton, we still don't really understand gravity at its most fundamental level.
Gravity is a force.
That's why we've been searching for decades for a quantum theory of gravity.
Gravity isn't a quanta. Gravity is a force.
That is based on a belief that physical behavior is ultimately intelligible, if not the ultimate cause.
Too many buzzwords here to make any sense of it.
100 years after the quantum mechanics framework was developed, we still don't really understand what quantum mechanics means.
No, YOU don't understand what quantum mechanics means. You don't get to speak for everyone. For those that created it and contribute to that model, they know exactly what it means.
Thats is why there are decades-long ongoing debates about the Copenhagen interpretation, the Many Worlds hypothesis, and the hidden variables hypothesis. The search continues because we have faith that there are rationally intelligible explanations.
Religion is not physics, science, quantum mechanics, or mathematics, Sybil.
Einstein himself spent the last 30 years of his life fruitlessly searching for a grand unification theory, because he believed that at its core the explanation of physical reality would be elegant and rationally intelligible.
No, he simply did not have enough energy.
 
Back
Top