M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
That is a scientific argument for the existence of matter, not the existence of physical reality. This does not give me a rational alternative to why potential reality exists.
- Status
S
Shredderbeam
Guest
If one accepts the concept of “reasonable belief” without scientific evidence, that applies to situations where no evidence is possible, such as the “brain in a vat” question (since it’s a question that calls our epistemology into question). The question of God’s existence, however, is a question that does not call our epistemology into question - rather, it’s a question within epistemology, and thus can be dealt with using standard empirical methods.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
It seems to me that our pattern recognition filtering of the physical properties of mass/energy is what we perceive as reality. If you want me to answer in accordance with your definition of reality, then define reality for me.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
I see the point of your argument. But not all questions about reality are scientific questions and so the scientific rule doesn’t apply in both cases. When dealing with reality in general, the question of Gods existence is not a scientific Question, but rather it is a metaphysical Question. Besides, we make inferences from knowledge of our selves to the existence of other minds without scientific evidence all the time. This is a rational belief, not a scientific belief. Thus i don’t see that the empirical method automatically applies in every case. Also we make inferences within the scientific context to none observable entities like quarks based on a belief that if the effect is measurable then the cause or rather the quark exists, and we believe in its existence because it explains those things that are measurable. Scientists “believe” these things, not just as scientists but as people, and they are rational to believe it. They have a reasonable belief based on observation. Similarly, many intelligent Christians believe in God because their experience as persons and existence in general prompts them to the rationalization that only something as powerful as God can “ultimately” account for reality in general as they experience it; because, in respect of an “ultimate explanation”, nothing else makes sense of the effect. They have a reasonable belief based on observation. And not all Christians or scientists believe that that the science of reality in particular is contradictory or in opposition to the idea that a supreme intellect fashioned the laws of physics.
Proceeding with scientific knowledge on the basis of a belief necessarily bars science from asking metaphysical questions, such as why is there something rather than nothing; since such a question can only be answered by metaphysical certainty; not science. God is not an empirical entity, but rather God is the reason for why there is such a thing as reality in general. One is not asking why there are physical things in particular. One is asking why is there such a thing as potential reality and reality in general, and a non-empirical transcendent necessary reality with an intellect is the only logical explanation.
M
MindOverMatter2
Guest
That which is, as opposed to that which is absolutely nothing.
B
buffalo
Guest
Multi-Verse vs God - here it is… just a few - let me know when you need more…
Top Theoretical Physicists Discuss the Options.
Does a Fine Tuned Universe Lead To God? ( about half-way through)
What do Multiple Universes Mean? (Andrei Linde) (Renata Kallosh)Would Multiple Universes Undermine God
Is God the Cause of a Fine-tuned Universe?
http://www.closertotruth.com/video-profile/Does-a-Fine-Tuned-Universe-Lead-to-God-Paul-Davies-/973
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I’m… Dumbfounded…
None of these offer any direct proof of a multiverse whatsoever, nor do they suggest in anything approaching a scientific way that there are only two possible models for the Universe. What they do offer is a lot of speculation based on wild surmise.
Out of curiosity, if the Universe is so well fine tuned for life, how come 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of it is so hostile to life that it would kill us all near instantaneously?
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
I’ve already answered your question. “That which is” is the manifestation of four fundamental force interactions and the laws under which they operate.
The Gravitational Force
The Strong Nuclear Force
The Weak Nuclear Force
And the Electromagnetic Force.
B
buffalo
Guest
I did not post that they were proved. Show me the post I did and I will apologize.
What I posted was that the physicists are left with two options: God and the Multi-verse.
I find it very unlikely they will ever be able to prove a multi-verse.
Your last question was answered in the series too.
In addition to the cosmos, the earth is fine-tuned for life. See the Privileged Planet.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Physicists are not left with two options and in any case God can never be an option to a physicist since God is unobservable and physics is based on observation and experimentation.
I can assure you that no physicist in his right mind would ever claim to know that there is a multiverse as there is not a shred of evidence to support such a claim.
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
the Earth can support life on some of it’s surface, some of the time. The Sun is getting hotter and will boil the oceans in around a billion years and the Moon is getting futher away and will stop acting as a gyroscope in about a billion years. As if that wasn’t enough, in three point six billion years the Andromeda Galaxy will collide with the Milky Way and in the, to put it mildly, improbable event we survive that cataclysm, in five billion years the Sun goes off the main sequence and becomes a red giant.
We are relegated to one little spec of rock that has a very limited shelf life and is faced with a future of insurmountable odds on its survival. If that is your idea of a Universe tuned to life, I respectfully submit that the tuner should get back to the control panel and turn some dials.
B
buffalo
Guest
Exactly - so the physicists publicly have to choose door number 2. The Multi-verse.
OK - so if there is no multi-verse to postulate then what is left? (but these scienctists pretty much all understand that the multi-verse is where they have to play)
B
buffalo
Guest
Beautifully said and support for fine tuning.
If He turns the dials at all - poof we are gone.
It seems you are disagreeing with all the top phycisists?
S
stenlis
Guest
I also think that to say that either multiverse exists or there is a god is a false dichotomy.
Here’s why:
Universe generally means ‘all that physically exists’ (physically is there to remove ‘ideas’ from the equation). When you introduce the word ‘multiverse’ it confuses the definition of universe. It also describes ‘all that physically exists’, however it claims that more things exist than has been considered before - namely parallel realities.
Whether god created all that exists is a wholly different question, regardless of what ‘all that exists’ is.
So there are two dichotomies - do parallel realities exist or not? (in other words - is multiverse theory true or not?) . The second dichotomy is - did god create all that exists or not?
However, to say that either parallel realities exist or god created all that exists is a false dichotomy.
Here’s why:
Universe generally means ‘all that physically exists’ (physically is there to remove ‘ideas’ from the equation). When you introduce the word ‘multiverse’ it confuses the definition of universe. It also describes ‘all that physically exists’, however it claims that more things exist than has been considered before - namely parallel realities.
Whether god created all that exists is a wholly different question, regardless of what ‘all that exists’ is.
So there are two dichotomies - do parallel realities exist or not? (in other words - is multiverse theory true or not?) . The second dichotomy is - did god create all that exists or not?
However, to say that either parallel realities exist or god created all that exists is a false dichotomy.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes indeed - and I think many physicists like Paul Davies get that. It only pushes God further back and really doesn’t solve the problem. That leaves us with God.
But really now that is what a non-believer has to think. He is fast running out of places to go due to what physics is finding. Sort of the “last frontier” - they can be safe in the fantasy of multi-verses for a while. (the odds are just crazy) But eventually…
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
Since we understand precisely what has happened since T=ZERO 13.7 billion years ago, and we know there has been no God involved in it, I’d say it’s your God who has been relegated to outside the Universe.
I am happy to accept that human kind will never know what exploded. I am happy to accept that human beings will never know what is before and/or outside the Univerese. We don’t know and may never know.
What I don’t accept is that this lack of knowledge gives people a license to simply make things up. I don’t claim to know the answer to these questions, but you do! It is that arrogance that intriuges me…
B
Betterave
Guest
Skimming the thread, I haven’t noticed anyone actually answering your question, so I’ll give it a shot. A science of principles is grasped immediately by the intellect (understanding). This is more like immediate intuition than faith. Faith is “more certain” because it is based on God’s revealed word. But that certainly doesn’t imply that what natural reason grasps is based on revelation; rather, it is based on *the effective exercise of our own intellectual powers *- and this is, in a sense, the opposite of fideism, which declares that there is no such thing (at least when it comes to certain questions).In Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics bk. 1 ch. 3, he says:To which St. Thomas Aquinas says in his Expositio Posteriorum, lib. 1 l. 7oes this mean that the “science of principles is possessed” by faith? Would not this be fideism, since it “affirms that the fundamental act of human knowledge consists in an act of faith” (Sauvage, G.)? Since St. Thomas says that “faith is more certain than science and the other intellectual virtues” (Summa Theologica IIª-IIae q. 4 a. 8), which is good if “demonstration must be based on premisses prior to and better known than the conclusion,” as Aristotle said" in the above-cited chapter of his Posterior Analytics, is it proper to say “Science, therefore, is grounded on faith?” Is this a type of fideism? Read this for more background. Thanks
M
Moonstruck888
Guest
No, it seems that you are being very disingenuous. What I actually said was that the extinguishing of all life in the Universe is inevitable and that with us the lifeforce on this planet already has a lot more years behind it than it does ahead of it… We are doomed my friend. Just as every human is doomed to die of old age, our Universe is inexorably running down as we speak…
B
buffalo
Guest
In many cases science do overstep their bounds. They claim things they cannot possibly know. They have the arrogance.
Now what have I made up?
B
buffalo
Guest
You are claiming that the extinguishing of all life in the universe is inevitable? What do you base that on?
How do you know?
Catholics understand and seek eternal life.
- Status