Will String theory eliminate God ?

And who among the gathering is the one that enjoys posting cartoons on the screen? YOU. And who is it that for a long while was advocating an Invisible Pink Panda sitting on their couch? YOU. Yep,,,, time for YOU to grow up.

 

Even if you found solid scientific evidence that God did ot exist, most religious people would simply ignore you, some would even try to harm or even kill you for even suggesting that their beleifs are wrong.......Religion is not about evidence and proof, it's about blind faith.

 

Who all is saying this is right besides you and William Lane Craig?

 

Yes I forgive you. Its with a sad heart that I am ending this conversation with you. Its not productive and I think your intent is malicious rather than curious. If you have a specific question or comment about the OP I would be happy to address it. Please write in a normal format and leave the large size letters for children or use them only very rarely for effect.

RevA

 

What? claiming a "valid philosophical argument is 'nonsense' and that it detracts from their creditability" ? Even one of the members here that usually disagrees with nearly everything I say, Koon and other PhDs would laugh you off any stage at any university if you claimed that.


RevA

 

Is that like Creationism is laughed at in scientific circles?

 

Wait dreadpiratejaymo, sorry for the short reply. Here is a better answer;

To answer your question, who besides me and Craig tells us that;"when you claim a "valid philosophical argument is 'nonsense' and that it detracts from their creditability?" The answer is Zillions. Even one of the members here that usually disagrees with nearly everything I say, agreed that its best not to ridicule a standard argument, ie the KCA based on logic! (the KCA’s first three premises construct a logical syllogism). Then there is Koon and hundreds other PhDs would laugh you off any stage at any university if you claimed that.

Have you familiar with Thomas Aquinas? Philosophy is a lynch pin of modern thought. Many high school or middle school students ask questions like that. (I taught both, HS&MS as a summer school teacher, then gave up teaching due to me being a near high school student myself. I wanted to be liked more than teach a difficult hated subject). Others are; "What good does studying crap like history do?" Or why study philosophy? Trust me learn it now along with the other subjects, you will thank me and yourself later.

Do you know the history of Cosmological arguments and or philosophy ? Here;

http://www.questionreality.org/id15.html

Thanks for your reply;

RevA

 

No not at all. Creationism is laughed at by those self-important fools that ridiculed those who where were speptical of Piltdown, or many other professionals and PhDs that do not buy into every claim that the priests of science try to sell. It's supremely satisfying to see those already over stuffed fools be force fed crow until they nearly burst. It looks to me that they should learn they are not an authority on anything and are only men who make guesses based on the ever changing evidence(s) of the day.


RevA

 

As I said there are different versions of the same theory

Versions as in ;

1. account of something: an account of something, given from a particular point of view
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

3. adaptation of something: an adaptation of something.

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

Hawking's calculations nearly always make sense, however thats all they are; caculations. No verification of the theory is possible. There is NO empirical evdience as there is with the standard (hot) big bang model which I and an overwhelming number of professionals accept. The hot BB model is what Evoultion is to biology. BTY, I only mentioned QG only as describing a component of Hawking’s (new and improved) that negated a need for a beginning.

Here is what you said; OTOH, I believe the quest to understand the origin of the universe, the four forces, matter, particle physics etc. is the primary purpose of intellect. IOW We seek to attain what we perceive to be the powers of god and should the time arrive when we are masters of energy, space and time we become "god" - omnipotent if not omniscient.

Maybe I misread what you said. I do not know your level of education and its the first time or nearly so that we have discussed these issues.

The Bible.

Yes its also a speculation of the NASA originated SETI.

Agreed.

Hmm’ there are 'natural' places in our universe where time and maybe not even space exists. Does that mean that nothing is there? Oh contraire! (see what can exist at the end of this post)! We do not have to call on the design of a supernatural’s deity’s crib for that. One example that comes to mind is the singularity of a black hole, its theorized to be both atemporal and antispatial. In any case I was an atheist on and off for twenty years so you have plenty of time to learn the truth of God ha ha….ehhhh …ahhh…amen?

Oh yeah, why don't you tell me what can exist 'in' the singularity?

Thanks for your reply

RevA

 

Ok, so there is a poster named Koon here that agrees with you and then there is the priest, Thomas Aquinas.

Anyone else?

 

Not knowing the subject isn’t something to be ashamed of, I am igorant in more subjects than I can count. I have posted links from Stanford etc and tried to reason with you. BTW, your comment about Koons is especially hilarious. Allow me; Robert C. Koons received his Ph.D. in philosophy from UCLA after being awarded First Class Honours in Philosophy and Theology at Oxford University. He is a professor of philosophy at the University of Texas at Austin.

He has published articles in such journals as Mind, Philosophical Studies, and The American Philosophical Quarterly. In his article, "A New Look at the Cosmological Argument," he has restated the classical argument for God as the First Cause, using techniques borrowed from recent work in mathematics, analytic philosophy, and cognitive science.

It's not that you have questions or are lacking knowing the general subject matter, or that you disagree, no, it's HOW you disagree. Your comments such as saying a standard component of philosophy is nonsense, combined with not knowing basic information such as thinking Koons is a member of our site is enough information I need to assess your competence. If you would asked instead of coming off like you know these basics of philosophy we may have had a measure of productive debate.

RevA

 

that's the best post you made on the thread

now we can add 'string theory'.....'integrity' and 'honesty' to the list of subjects!

 

HAHA! Best post in this thread by Bishadi yet!

 

But even Bishadis comments don't come near the level of infantile delusions as you have stated... claiming that an Invisible Pink Panda sits on your couch and talks with you and how you can feel its warm cuddle.

 

No...

... `cause God can always counter...

... with fractals.

 

God as a concept is adaptable. I don't think any theory can bring an end to God, merely change the way that people who have flexible minds will view him (the inflexible will die out in a couple generations).

Religion is pretty much natural to humans.
And, frankly, if it was destroyed, we'd just have people fighting over other crap (and indeed they do). I don't think science should take into account at all what the effect of inquiry is on religion.

 

Are you suggesting that science should stay out of or away from the considerations of 'religion'; or are you suggesting the opposite?

 

I'm saying that the effects on religion should be ignored.

Scientific inquiry should challenge established ways of thinking, but not for the purpose of destroying religion.
It's one thing to get better understanding of the origins of the universe and, as a result, impact religion. It's another to go at the question for the purpose of impacting religion. Or to avoid inquiry because it might impact religion.

So I guess it's closer to the opposite.

I just don't see why it's important that the idea of God be quashed completely. People will continue to believe in some form of God regardless... or they will turn against science.

The reason to seek string theory is to understand the universe better, not to delete God from people's imaginations.

 

Thank you for that clarification.

 

Your religion sounds in my ears like "There is no god and rstones199 is his prophet". Human beings like dogs are always [a little] childish. Charles Schulz saw this very clear. The "human race" is by the way not able to grow up because only individuals grow up. That's why we need schools and churches and other cultural and civilisatoric things.

http://youtu.be/Z_Rfjl6tGW4

 

Since all 5 theories incorporate the concept of strings one could argue that they are all variations of this theme.

But since the concepts and mathematics built on this theme are so substantially different I think a case can be made that they are different theories.

Open or closed
Bosons or bosons and fermions
supersymmetry = superstring
26 dimensions
10 dimensions

You misread it. disperate elements seperated by a comma and extended by etc. is a list by my writing style.

I beleive I have a sufficient level of education to discuss superstring theory with you.

Both time and matter exist in a singularity.

In a singularity it is theorized that time stops, which is significantly different than not existing, at least mathematically if not observationally.

In a singularity it is theorized that its matter collapses to the size of a planck length (10 to the -35th) which may be close to nothing as to not "matter" (heheh) but which is still a defined size.

These two variables must exist in order for the math to make any sense. That is Einstiens equations, superstring theory and hawking radiation. If black holes can decay, then both time and matter must exist within the singularity.

 

I don’t have a religion. Hence your post is a fallacious argument.

 

Respectfully, both of your arguments pull conclusions out of thin air and require the listener to have already accepted part of what you are supposedly attempting to argue in favor of.

State them each plainly and I will show the exact point where the logic stops so that you can defend those points specifically.

 

Which God may be eliminated, there are so many to choose from? Cernunnos is cool.

 

No telling when the Rev might be back so I will go ahead and leave him something to respond to.

Everything that exists must have a cause. Not true. In fact, nothing in existence has ever been shown to have a cause. The premise is a lie, and the argument is a failure, respectfully, Rev. Your premise is the very thing you are trying to prove with your argument, simply reiterated. Pretty clever, but it doesn't exactly take sitting through hours of philosophy lessons to see through it.

Ontological says that if you can perceive it, then it exists. This is also a false premise. Another lie that can be outed simply by sitting in our chairs and picturing something we know does not exist. Only in our minds, which is also the only place to find your God. In fantasyland, respectfully, Rev.

Combining the two arguments does not make either more or less believable. Combing birth control with condom use does protect against pregnancy more effectively than either method alone. But this is not true for arguments, which is the position you often take in your threads, that somehow the two arguments side-by-side compensate for each of their respective gaps. They do not. Two failed arguments do not add up to a successful one.

But you aren't looking to truly convince anyone other than yourself and those who already accept your beliefs. So I guess it doesn't matter, respectfully, Rev.