Human omni-science!

  • Thread starter Thread starter tonyrey
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Does saying that God is beyond time and space has any evidence? Evidence for God to begin with let alone for such an assertion.
 
GEddie said:
The topic is not time but how you know for certain that time is the monopoly of this universe, i.e. that time doesn’t exist in other universes?
Click to expand...
It matters to STT: “I would say that time is the fundamental variable in** our** universe. By fundamental I mean it is crucial for explaining motion and cannot be emergent.”
Click to expand...
 
inocente said:
The universe is the set of all things and all phenomena, whether or not they are known. It’s not as if all the other billions of galaxies only popped into existence and became part of the universe the moment we knew of them. There must be an uncountable number of things we don’t know about, but they are still part of the universe because that’s how it’s defined.

I’m curious why you want it otherwise. I mean by definition there is no thing and no phenomenon outside the universe (and God is neither), so why do you feel the need to redefine the word?
Click to expand...
If that is the case a “multiverse” is nonsense!
 
tonyrey said:
If that is the case a “multiverse” is nonsense!
Click to expand...
As your thread title has ‘science’ in it, here’s the scientific definition from my Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy:

“Universe Everything that exists, including space, time, and matter. The study of the Universe is known as cosmology. Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe with a capital ‘U’, meaning the cosmos and all its contents, and universe with a small `u’, which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory.”

So by scientific as well by general definition, any multiverses would have to be inside the universe, but as they’re only hypothesized and there’s no evidence for them, it’s moot I tells thee, moot.

Do you object for a reason? And the reason is… ?
 
inocente said:
As your thread title has ‘science’ in it, here’s the scientific definition from my Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy:

"Universe Everything that exists, including space, time, and matter. The study of the Universe is known as cosmology. Cosmologists distinguish between the Universe with a capital ‘U’, meaning the cosmos and all its contents, and universe with a small `u’, which is usually a mathematical model derived from some physical theory."

So by scientific as well by general definition, any multiverses would have to be inside the universe, but as they’re only hypothesized and there’s no evidence for them, it’s moot I tells thee, moot.

Do you object for a reason? And the reason is… ?
Click to expand...
The reason is quite simple. Your Dictionary of Astronomy is not a metaphysical authority. There isn’t a jot of evidence that everything that exists consists solely of physical energy. In fact Christians reject that hypothesis for two very good reasons:
  1. The Creator doesn’t consist of physical energy
  2. God may well create other forms of reality of which we have no inkling.
 
Bradski said:
Tony, if you are just hell bent on hitting 30,000 posts asap then I have a few tips.
Click to expand...
You obviously don’t understand that I value quality rather than quantity nor that I value and enjoy the discussions very much. Your cynicism is understandable in view of your negative attitude to reality which you regard as ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless. In fact “enthusiasm” which you don’t seem to understand implies “the God within” whereas your posts are motivated by antipathy and hostility to spiritual values…
 
Vera_Ljuba said:
Omniscience is not a composite word containing “SCIENCE”. Maybe you think that Omni-POTENCE is the description of someone who has “unlimited sexual prowess”? I would not be surprised.
Click to expand...
You obviously fail to understand that “omni-science” is an ironic reference to the hypothesis that science can in principle explain everything. Why else would it be hyphenated?

Do you believe science can explain itself? If so how? If not why not?
 
tonyrey said:
You obviously don’t understand that I value quality rather than quantity nor that I value and enjoy the discussions very much. Your cynicism is understandable in view of your negative attitude to reality which you regard as ultimately valueless, purposeless and meaningless. In fact “enthusiasm” which you don’t seem to understand implies “the God within” whereas your posts are motivated by antipathy and hostility to spiritual values…
Click to expand...
🙂 I agree, not to mention how childish he is!
 
tonyrey said:
The reason is quite simple. Your Dictionary of Astronomy is not a metaphysical authority.
Click to expand...
Dictionary writers don’t make metaphysical claims, they just state what people commonly mean when they use a word.
There isn’t a jot of evidence that everything that exists consists solely of physical energy. In fact Christians reject that hypothesis for two very good reasons:
Click to expand...
  1. The Creator doesn’t consist of physical energy
  2. God may well create other forms of reality of which we have no inkling.
Click to expand...
Two errors there, both because you are not using standard meanings for words.

First, God is not a thing. The OED defines universe as the sum of all things and phenomena, and God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Exactly what Christians believe. This Christian objects to you trying to incorporate God into everything that exists. Things are contingent objects, God is neither contingent nor an object.

Second, since God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe, and since the universe is defined as the sum of all things and phenomena, any other form of reality is by definition part of the universe, and by definition is part of the one creation created by the one God.

Worth remembering that if one in every thousand Catholics are scientists, that adds up to one million Catholic scientists on the planet. And when they say universe they too mean what the dictionary says they mean.
 
inocente said:
Dictionary writers don’t make metaphysical claims, they just state what people commonly mean when they use a word.

Two errors there, both because you are not using standard meanings for words.

First, God is not a thing. The OED defines universe as the sum of all things and phenomena, and God as the creator and ruler of the universe. Exactly what Christians believe. This Christian objects to you trying to incorporate God into everything that exists. Things are contingent objects, God is neither contingent nor an object.

Second, since God is defined as the creator and ruler of the universe, and since the universe is defined as the sum of all things and phenomena, any other form of reality is by definition part of the universe, and by definition is part of the one creation created by the one God.

Worth remembering that if one in every thousand Catholics are scientists, that adds up to one million Catholic scientists on the planet. And when they say universe they too mean what the dictionary says they mean.
Click to expand...
The very fact that you used the Oxford Dictionary of Astronomy reveals your preference for scientific rather than metascientific explanation and your rejection of Design in favour of evolution as if God is a remote deity who created the universe and then left it to its own devices without ever intervening, taking any steps to prevent disasters or responding to their prayers instead of being a loving Father who works miracles and does His utmost to mitigate suffering in ways we cannot understand. Your reference to “one million Catholic scientists” also reveals your prejudice in favour of science rather than theology and philosophy which you have frequently implied are useless and out of date…
 
That someone prefers science to philosophy does not make his points negligible!

For too long, our Holy Church has hidden behind famous philosophical names and their pronouncements (seldom less than 500 years old), rather than face the changes the Scientific Age had brought to our known world.

While philosophers were arguing the merits of slavery, the Industrial Revolution was gradually making it uneconomical.

While theologians were debating God’s purpose in creating illness, scientists were curing it.

I am **not **saying one should be done over the others. But if someone prefers the branch of knowledge that has borne more visible fruit within our times, that should not just be dismissed. If you want to argue, you need to do it on your opponent’s terms.

ICXC NIKA
 
GEddie said:
That someone prefers science to philosophy does not make his points negligible!

For too long, our Holy Church has hidden behind famous philosophical names and their pronouncements (seldom less than 500 years old), rather than face the changes the Scientific Age had brought to our known world.

While philosophers were arguing the merits of slavery, the Industrial Revolution was gradually making it uneconomical.

While theologians were debating God’s purpose in creating illness, scientists were curing it.

I am **not **saying one should be done over the others. But if someone prefers the branch of knowledge that has borne more visible fruit within our times, that should not just be dismissed. If you want to argue, you need to do it on your opponent’s terms.

ICXC NIKA
Click to expand...
My response was to an individual who has implied:
  1. Science is superior to philosophy and theology.
  2. Evolution has disproved Design.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top