Will String theory eliminate God ?

But this includes the fallacy you admit. To say that time began at some point, even if it was God who started it, is to say that there was a time before time...which is contradictory.

 

Here is a valid philosophical argument:

Cells are invisible to the human eye. <---- 1st premise is true
Humans are made up of cells <------- 2nd premise is true

Since premise 1 and 2 are true, then this MUST also be true:
Humans are invisible to the human eye.

Prove that Cells are not invisible to the human eye. Prove that Humans are not made up of cells. Until you can prove either one, then humans must be invisible to the human eye. You cannot defeat this.

The above is what is wrong with philosophical arguments. This is why philosophical arguments is not proof of any kind. This is another reason why the KCA is nonsense, as ALL philosophical arguments are. This is why I don’t deal with philosophical nonsense. I want evidence, not nonsense.

As for String Theory and the KCA...debunk the KCA and this entire thread is pretty much meaningless.

PS: With all due respect, If you don't claim this valid philosophical argument is 'nonsense' then it detracts from your creditability IMO.

 

then how can you put your life, integrity and faith in a religious observance?

more times, versions and flavors than you could even comprehend

funny......... then why do people trust doctors, medicine and science to save their life

do you wear a helmit when you walk?

so because of heisenbergs uncertainties principle, do you actually believe mankind is incapable of comprehending itself forever?

dont have a teaching credential but i am having an impact all over the world not to mention, this very forum.


ie..... just in this thead, i shared how anyone can walk on water, in fact! And not even Jesus could do that.

 

No doubt that trying to move an a priori argument into the evidential realm has problems. But since the efficacy of the notion of the degree to which interpretations of evidence can be trusted is itself a philosophical question, a priori argument can not be avoided by appeal to evidence.

Since it's clear that humans are not invisible, the problem with the argument is that it leaves out important steps. As such, it's a standard example of sophistry. A proper philosophical argument should be very hard to reduce to sophistry. The KCA is sophistry as well.

 

Chris Angel is a way better magician than Jesus ever was.

 

Sophistry

Since humans are involved, you can say all philosophical arguments will be misleading in some way shape or form, as everyone has their own personal agenda.

This is why evidence is so important. Evidence that be tested by many different people. The more people that can test evidence the less and less chance of personal agendas.

 

maybe. But a real attempt to not be biased should be taken into account. As I said, it's for this reason and others that we need to be careful about philosophical arguments, not necessarily reject them outright on principle.

If you're trying to squeeze some meaning out of the world of phenomena, evidence is essential. Without it, you have very little.

I am being nitpicky here. I have said more than once that I have little use for any philosophy prior to the 20th century. Other philosophers have echoed this saying things like "the only philosophy left is the philosophy of science."

But still the farther away we are from subjects with plentiful available evidence the more reliant we become on philosophy to make any headway.

 

String theory has and probably will have have gaps for quite some time, this goes for any scientific theory and endeavor.

Some people simply use god to fill these gaps, so I doubt it will eliminate the concept of god.

 

No. If it started in one point then there was no time before. If your imagination of this process needs time then it needs time because you are a part of this universe here - a part of his creation.

http://youtu.be/7NpAXMdBWTQ

 

Are you sure you know what you are saying? Give me an example please: Who filled what gap with what kind of idea in context with god and why? Nearly no one knows anything else about the string theory than the name.

http://youtu.be/E4gKjLa0G0A

 

I'm not a big KCA fan myself, but it is a valid logical argument (depending on the variation and wording, I guess). It may or may not be sound. Valid and sound are two different things, by the way.

However, your argument above is not even valid. The conclusion does not follow from the premises. Google "composition fallacy".

 

I have debated the KCA at length here on this site and hopefully those that I debated with are aware of the strengths and weaknesses of the KCA. I can assure you the KCA is valid, as any first year student of philosophy would affirm ! Is the KCA sound? Yes of course it is according to many PhD enabled people who study such things. However, the soundness of the KCA subjective, it's philosophy my friend, not math. The reason the KCA has the staying power of a thousand years in various forms (with the same structure) is that its premises can not, or have not been proven wrong. Combine that with its solid logic and you have a legitimate theory. However, as I said the intention of this thread is not to discuss the validity of the KCA, that is a virtual given in professional and academic circles. No, the reason I wrote this thread is to discuss the implications of ST to big bang based evidences of theology (which would include the KCA). The KCA can be viewed in analogy something like different interpretations of quantum field theory. All of them are valid, nevertheless some theorists like one interpretation over the others for various reasons. I would guess the primary reason that one interpretation is chosen over the others has to do with logical positivism vs metaphysicalism.

Again I have already debated those very things at sickening length. Additionally the strengths vs. weakness of the KCA and other cosmological/ontological arguments are a dime a dozen on the net. FYI the I do not consider the KCA to have any great weakness but if I was forced to pick one it would be the second premise which again is the gist of this thread.

Rev.A.

 

Rev, I think you are attributing validity to an argument that fails at this in the very first premise it makes. I'll go into it later tonight, when I find the time, but there are multiple fault lines in the validity and soundness of the KCA as a logical argument for the existence of a deity.

But to follow briefly on a point you raise: the age of the ontological arguments so adored by theists, does not make them valid, sound, or even vaguely reasonable. The time that an idea has been around does not mean it is true.

Again, I'll go into this in some more depth later.

 

As long as an idea is not false it is true. If in a very long time no one found out that an idea is wrong then probability our thoughts are perhaps simulating the reality for us in a satisfying way so we are able to say "&#951;&#8021;&#961;&#951;&#954;&#945;".

In other words: Only because a circle always is round this doesn't mean in the future we will find out that a circle has edges. Says the string theory something about the existance of circles and the roundness of circles?

http://youtu.be/QfuRsZ-zxWM?t=30s

 

I go out for drinks and karaoke with a bunch of physicists every Tuesday. There is no quicker way to get them into a screaming match than to mention the words "string theory."

Most of them are not fans, and the biggest proponent only makes the mild claim that string theory is "elegant."

String theory will never disprove God on the path that it is going now, but there is little question that it could easily offer a more elegant explanation of the origins of our observable universe than creationism offers.

However, any explanation it offers is going to be so alien that some theists will simply dismiss it and others will claim that it supports their case.

 

This is a standard logical argument and you would do well not to disagree with it.

Time can't start as this implies that some "period of time" transpired prior to the beginning of time. Hence there is no beginning of time.

 

Because faith is only one of many components of my religious belief. I want you to know that I am always very, very careful to be accurate when speaking to another about God and religion. A better way of putting it is that the evidence for the existence of God, including the logical necessity of God* FORCED me to convert from atheism to Christianity VIA the nagging inner dialogue that we all have kept telling me that the many evidences, some so new they are still emerging, evidences that included the fields of science, philosophy, logic and much more brow beat me into first researching then confirming that yes its more rational and logical to assume that God exists.

For my part ‘faith’ came after the evidence forced me to consider the credibility of God then later confirm the logical and rational necessity of God, and the faith is still coming! God is giving me the gift of pure ‘golden faith’ for free. If I could use a pie chart it would be something like this ; Half of my belief in God pie is evidence of science which includes standard Big Bang cosmology. A quarter of the pie is philosophical arguments. The last quarter of the belief pie is faith, archeology that is vindicating biblical claims, fulfilled prophesy, a near death experience. I would guess a traditional Christian pie would be at least three quarters of a pie that was faith based. As I said I envy those people. I know that I am blinded to the complete truth because my faith is not as strong as it could be. And its not easy to admit that I have such little pure faith. However I would die instead of recant my belief in God or that Jesus Christ was the ‘son of God‘. Faith is required to be a Christian I am sure that the my faith that once only dripped like a Chinese water torture to wake me from an atheist paradigm that is now a trickle will soon be a waterfall. I can feel it coming, and it cant come too soon, but it will have to come naturally.

More than I can comperhend? What a quintrillion zullion pertrillion million times? ha ha...ah? Sorry for the levity...Well maybe your absence of knowledge or comments that there is no evidence as well as the suggestions that religion is myth is selective? Maybe your seeming lack of knowalge of basic biblical concepts and ideas is selective as well? Or maybe you are so angry at Christanity and God that you refuse to give any postive assesment to biblical wisdom if possible? I simply do not believe that your distaste for things biblical arise from lack of knowledge. Something is up and I understand if you would rather keep some things private. I keep a lot private believe if or not!

Its nothing to ponder really. Most people trust MD’s way too much! Just like in the 50’s when people trusted police and our institutions much more than today! Or at least my beloved leave it to beaver parents did. To answer your question its simply the idea that everything will be ok. That kind of faith is arrived at by making a decision based on the evidence of their credentials which gives them assurances that everything will be ok. I would guess that just as there are many different personality types there are many reasons that people have faith in doctors etc. Some have a God complex and actually have religious type faith that the witch doctor will heal them. Some types use evidences to maintain their trust in doctors, such as the evidences statistical information etc. Most probably most of us use a blend of these things. Personally as a veteran of maybe fifteen surgeries I research the MDs records mortality rates mal practice history etc and how successful similar operations are. Then I make a decision based on mostly guessed at probabilities. So really even those decisions rest on faith in a way.

Acts 26:18
to open their eyes and turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan to God, so that they may receive forgiveness of sins and a place among those who are sanctified by faith in me.'

No they are an intrusion on my freedom. I don't always wear a helmet when I ski rock climb or ride a motorcycle even though it is the law of the land. I am a risk taker and enjoy the rush of taking chances. I do not very much respect (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*), whiners or parasites. That includes religious parasites btw.

No not at all. Man is limited. Finite. Our brain only has so many connections. Even though it's better than anything man has created all in all. However, nothing is certain and very few things if anything can be said to be true or certain. Even mathematical systems as per Godel. Even you and I relative to everyone else can not agree on our momentum and location in space (among other things). Yes, most of the time that example is used where relativistic velocities are employed but the concept is valid even when considering non relativistic speeds. I am saying that until we somehow merge metaphysics with logical positive science truth will probably elude us. By truth I mean the big questions. The only hope is that a new physics may be discovered but that is akin to religious belief.

That is true and I will agree. Every blink every beat of our heart every fart changes or effects something. Its called the butterfly effect and is related to Chaos theory.

Jesus did walk in water. I thought you read your bible?

RevA

 

Good post. I agree that sometimes we use god of the gaps, and shouldn't. For discovery in the physical sciences ie the natural universe I would rather use empirical science. However our science fails us when the energies and process become so incredibly extreme as they were when the universe began. That is why I like to use the philosophical arguments and other tools of logic to probe where science can not now go. I detest saying 'I don’t know'. Using logic and such things when science fails us is like using naked eye observation of the planets instead of Hubble. We may only glean orbital motion and such things by naked eye observation but we learn to ask the right questions from the observations sans modern scientific tools. That is where we are today when it comes to answering questions with energies that were apparent in the big bang. We do not have a Hubble so we must work with what we have, and that is logic philosophical tools and rationally. Of course we can go too far and say that God did it. Even I would not agree to that. However I see the evidences of GID via the philosophical logical and other tools I mentioned earlier. Therefore its more than making unfounded statements to say the universe was created, IMO its the best answer we have.

RevA.

 

No however the age and the many challenges to the arguments by the best educated and skilled scientific professionals of the ages that failed adds to the arguments creditability IMO even if that statement skirts being a logical fallacy. BTW the first premise of the KCA can not be proven wrong. And so while some may question it, that&#8217;s about all that is possible. If one is honest with ones self and this forum the first premises is true in the spirit of the argument. What ever BEGINS to exist has a CAUSE to begin to exist. I think its disingenuous to scratch around in the quantum world (where everything does have a cause to begin to exist anyway) and under every rock in the universe attempting to find at least one example of something that doesnt have a cause to exist fails to address the spirit of the argument.

The KCA is a cosmological argument not a scientific theory that uses the scientific method or empirical methods to validate itself. It is valid by its structure alone. And again this thread is not to discuss the validity of the KCA but rather the impact that string theory will have on such Valid cosmological arguments. However still I thank everyone that has answered in good faith. Lastly I think I see a good trend at this site by the atheists and agnostics. Kismo really surprised me by agreeing. So I have more hopes that this forum can become a really good place to discuss various opposing concepts without becoming toxic. I too am trying to be a little more friendly and less mean in the face of adversity ha ha. Thanks again for the good interesting replies.

RevA

 

I shouldn’t get into this because its kind of off topic. But time did begin to exist according to Big bang cosmology. It began to exist nanoseconds after the big bang. It is maybe a fallacy to say before time that’s why physicists say something is outside time. Temporal and atemporal are the words to use even if they are not really accurate. One means related to things time dependent and atemporal means not related to time. Einstine and Godel talked of universes outside of our time and in another spacetime loop. Google Godel universes. God according to Craig and Koons version of the KCA and to somewhat my interpretation of the KCA is said to exist outside of time and does not regularly enter into time. There are professional terms that are used for being outside time etc. I would be happy to provide links to specific articles written by Craig for the popular or advanced reader (he writes both). Craig is a Research Professor of Philosophy and is a Christian apologist.

Christian Apologist ;a·pol·o·gist [&#601; póll&#601;j&#601;st]
(plural a·pol·o·gists)
n
somebody who defends or justifies something: somebody who argues to defend or justify a particular doctrine or ideology

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

BTW I do not watch vids or UTubes as supporting evdience. Why? Its too hard to verify the facts and validity of the content.

RevA

 

You might want to rethink or restate this part.

 

I appreciate your concern, and you are correct. I should have said time was created in the big bang how is that? Technically I was incorrect because I said time was created nano's 'after' the bb... duhhhhh. I write so much about this stuff as a lay writer (my expertise is theology not science) that my brain was on auto, thinking of the other forces of nature ie Gravitation, the Electromagnetic Force, the Weak Nuclear Force, and lastly the Strong Nuclear Force all evident during the Planck Epoch which was before (time) ten minus forty three seconds, immediately after the Big Bang which is said to be (t=0) where t is spacetime* the lower case 't' indicating the difference between ordinary time (T) and space time. FYI, at that time all four forces were unified into a single Superforce according to standard big bang cosmology. I just somehow had a brain fart and clumped time and space in with the four forces and in the superforce there too! Sorry for the error!

Trivia; Its a difficult process to envision causality without time eh? According to the way I understand the KCA causality should be able to exist sans time unless there is different realm where our physics do not apply. Since I think the multiverse/met averse/etc (a product of string theory) is a awful, incredible theory I would rather accept the logic of causality without time.

RevA

 

Oh, then you admit to having 'pure faith' as you are admitting the ability to influence matter and mass.

 

That is a simple question to answer. Those "so-called physical constants" have the value they have because someone imagined them to be such as they are defined to be; then that someone convinced another or a group of others to believe in what had been written, then they became accepted by that group who were professing to be the authority figures in that specific area of life. Once accepted by that peer group, it was made public and the public was required to accept it as the gospel because challenging that new data would lead to being rebuked and ostracized by all those members of the peer group.

 

Notes for the above post, ; * SORRY FOR USING WIKI BUT ITS FAIRLY ACCURATE IN THIS CASE; ** Spacetime - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacetime

reva