M-theory

  • Thread starter Thread starter mardukm
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

mardukm

Guest
Has anyone here heard of the “M-theory” in cosmology? The way it came about - from the string theory - is fascinating. I don’t deign to imagine that science can “prove” God, but M-theory, in this layman’s eyes, makes God even more real. The idea that there is an underlying matrix in the universe that pervades every thing in the universe (and beyond) makes God more plausible to the rational mind. What do you scientists in this forum think (or has this topic been discussed before)?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I just saw a thread discussing - or intending to discuss - M-theory. The theory itself didn’t generate much discussion, and I doubt my question will as well.

What I propose is a more theological question. Pope Pius XII supported the idea of the Big Bang because it gave credence to the Scriptural creation ex nihilo. It seems M-theory challenges the “ex-nihilo” facet of the Big Bang theory. Yet I think M-theory is more attractive theologically because it gives credence to the Scripture “all things were made through him, and without him nothing was made.”

If science somehow proves the existence of God, will that increase or decrease faith in this world?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
mardukm said:
If science somehow proves the existence of God, will that increase or decrease faith in this world?
Click to expand...
LOL, nobody has answered…I have no idea what M-Theory is.😛

Anyway, it is very clear if the existance of God was proven that would increase faith.
The fool says in his heart ‘There is no God’
~Ps 53:1
 
Dear Catholic Dude,

I am asking as an Oriental Christian. As you might know, Eastern/Oriental Christians value the inherent mystery of God, (perhaps) moreso than the Westerns. From an Oriental Christian perspective, it is possible that if science somehow “proved” the existence of God, it could either weaken faith or simply cause an outright rejection of such “proof.” It is almost blasphemous for me as an Oriental Christian to even consider that God can be “proven” in any sense of the term. I suppose it can be stated, however - and this from an Oriental Christian perspective - that whatever science proves, it will not be the existence of God per se, but simply that of His energeia, which are, for lack of a more concise definition, the “observable” characteristics or manifestations of God.

Dear Ribozyme,
Though the parallel universes M-theory posits may not be directly observable, it seems to insist that our observable cosmic phenomena are merely manifestations of such universes’ intersections with our own. This strikes a sonorous note with my Oriental Christian theological perspective which makes a distinction between the Energies of God, on the one hand (which may be observable), and his Essence, on the other (which can never be fathomed).

That the “other” universe(s) posited by M-theory cannot be directly observed can possibly lend credence to the Oriental/Eastern theological perspective on God. Fascinating, don’t you think?

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I googled “M theory” and found an article in Wikipedia that you might want to start from.

As far as the string theory is concerned, my latest issue of Astronomy magazine has an in-depth article about the evidence that is mounting up that the string theory may be wrong. A little deep for me, but interesting anyway.

DaveBj
 
Physical cosmological theories can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God, who in Catholic theology is perceived as a wholly non-material (i.e. spiritual) being.

While the Big Bang may be esthetically pleasing, I don’t think it has anything to do with creation ex-nihilo. Theologically, creation ex-nihilo is required whether or not the universe is spatially or temporally finite or infinite.

To me, the interesting thing about string theory, and possibly M-theory, it’s successor, as well, is that it makes it seem that we perhaps live in an analog universe after all!
 
mardukm said:
Dear Catholic Dude,

I am asking as an Oriental Christian. As you might know, Eastern/Oriental Christians value the inherent mystery of God, (perhaps) moreso than the Westerns. From an Oriental Christian perspective, it is possible that if science somehow “proved” the existence of God, it could either weaken faith or simply cause an outright rejection of such “proof.” It is almost blasphemous for me as an Oriental Christian to even consider that God can be “proven” in any sense of the term. I suppose it can be stated, however - and this from an Oriental Christian perspective - that whatever science proves, it will not be the existence of God per se, but simply that of His energeia, which are, for lack of a more concise definition, the “observable” characteristics or manifestations of God.

Dear Ribozyme,
Though the parallel universes M-theory posits may not be directly observable, it seems to insist that our observable cosmic phenomena are merely manifestations of such universes’ intersections with our own. This strikes a sonorous note with my Oriental Christian theological perspective which makes a distinction between the Energies of God, on the one hand (which may be observable), and his Essence, on the other (which can never be fathomed).

That the “other” universe(s) posited by M-theory cannot be directly observed can possibly lend credence to the Oriental/Eastern theological perspective on God. Fascinating, don’t you think?

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I understand what you mean by its almost blasphemous to claim God can be “proven” as if we could reduce Him to a science experiment, I agree our finite and created minds cannot fathom his Essence. I didnt realize what you were saying in your OP, you meant something like M-Theory could literally reduce the proof of God to a science experiment.
I suppose it can be stated, however - and this from an Oriental Christian perspective - that whatever science proves, it will not be the existence of God per se, but simply that of His energeia, which are, for lack of a more concise definition, the “observable” characteristics or manifestations of God.
Click to expand...
This is what I was talking about though I failed to make the distinction you make and as a result I misspoke in that last post and should not have said that. Given your distinction above I cant see how such “manifestations” of God would cause someone to lose faith, rather it could only strengthen their faith.

I was thinking about such “proofs” like the fact the universe had a starting point and therefore had to be created, the creator was God. I believe faith and reason are not opposed and I believe that “proofs” like the above do strengthen my faith. After reading the other responses here I guess I question wheter such examples constitute actual “proof”…I dont know what to classify it as.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top