ThatOwlWoman (09-18-2021)
Members banned from this thread: BRUTALITOPS, Minister of Truth, The Anonymous, cancel2 2022, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Niche Political Commentor, Superfreak, volsrock, Yurt, Earl, Lord Yurt, OG Yurt and Yakuda |
ThatOwlWoman (09-18-2021)
Aesthetically, I appreciate the concept that all reality could be boiled down to a single equation. String theory seems elegant, and claims to ultimately be able to unify relativity with quantum mechanics.
I do not have a dog in the fight, and I am not competent in advanced theoretical mathematics to be able to say I personally support one theory over another.
What you failed to address is my statement that the two possibilities are not equal. Are you positive that Santa doesn't exist? I rest my case. It is not 'wishful thinking'. It's called observation and science. God, by definition, is not part of the natural world. That isn't even a subject for debate.
Exactly. We are limited by our ability to observe and measure the natural world. There is nothing we can observe that indicates God exists. NOTHING. The conclusion is that God does not exist. Could that change? Sure, if God decides to land in Times Square and let scientists measure his shoe size. But there is nothing in the natural, observable world that indicates the existence of God. Zero. Nil. Nada. Intelligent Design is nonsense, not science. Belief and fact are not the same thing. That argument holds no water.
Math is a metaphor for our understanding of the universe that changes depending on the galaxy or dimension. Michio Kaku said the multiverse is 11 dimensional, and he has a side hustle on TV advocating for ancient aliens. Would he write a book on the unification of religion if the money was right?
Humans built pyramids without any help from aliens or gods.
Concart: "What you failed to address is my statement that the two possibilities are not equal."
Jack; Maybe they are NOT equal to YOU. I can not refute the existence of a 'Great Spirit'. I, personally, don't have a problem with not knowing. 'NOT KNOWING' doesn't effect my life in any way.
Concart: "Are you positive that Santa doesn't exist? I rest my case."
Jack: Yeah, he doesn't exist ... but does serve a purpose. So, maybe there is something in there for those that want to Believe?
Concart: "It is not 'wishful thinking'. It's called observation and science. God, by definition, is not part of the natural world. That isn't even a subject for debate."
Jack: 'God' may have a very broad definition. Using it in a sense as a 'Watchmaker', with the accompanying small glasses, long grey hair, and aged appearance, (maybe the conventional perception), I would tend to agree.
You made a bunch of claims about Dr. Kaku which I have never heard and which you make no attempt to corroborate by link to reputable source
I have no idea if string theory is a correct interpretation of reality, or not.
I do know that string theory is taken seriously by more physicists than Dr. Kaku. It is not even remotely close to being a lone crack pot hypothesis. It resides well within the boundaries of acceptable ideas in modern physics. That right there is enough for me to at least treat
string theory seriously.
Until a way to test string theory is ever developed, to me it will never rise to anything more than a creative idea. Some physicists seem to think that even if string theory is an incomplete interpretation of reality, there is still something so elegant and profound in it's mathematics it might be telling us something about the nature of reality, even if only in an indirect way.
I do not think any serious or intelligent person is looking for an old guy wearing white robes who lives in the clouds.
That is a caricature which is not even taken seriously in the realm of good christian theology.
But more importantly, a universal concept of god, of a higher power, of an ultimate truth is not limited to a caricature of Charlton Heston in a white robe. Whether one is talking about a Abrahamistic god, or the Dao, or Brahman, or Nirvana, or a world spirit per animism, to me they seemingly all speak to an incomprehensible higher truth which exists outside of space, time, and direct human experience.
At this point, we do not even understand 95 percent of the universe, because the last 30 years have demostrated to us that there is apparently more to reality than quarks and leptons.
To me at least, there is value in maintaining a sense of humility about what we can know. I doubt the Dao, Brahman, Nirvana, god, or any human-created avatar for an ultimate reality behind the laws of physics can ever be tested under laboratory conditions. I am prepared to at least accept the possibility that there is knowledge about reality which is beyond our comprehension, beyond the ability of our particle accelerators to measure, and perhaps even beyond the capability of our language and mathematics to describe.
That is just my two cents.
I have no idea of where you got that "definition" of agnostic from, but stay away from that dictionary.
It MAY be impossible to know whether there is a GOD (or, are gods), but any agnostic worth his/her salt is never going to "believe" it is impossible.
In any case, my agnosticism takes this form:
I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...
...so I don't.
(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)
I most assuredly DO see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess about whether or not Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, Unicorns, leprechauns, and Harry Potter exist. That statement of yours is not a "cop out"...it is stupid.
On gods?It's why I think the term 'agnostic' is a dodge. It implies that both possibilities are equally probable, and they are absolutely not.
You know the POSSIBILITY of whether gods exist or not?
And you figured that out...how?
Which is more possible...and by how much?
ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!
Jack (09-19-2021)
ON HIS WORST DAY, JOE BIDEN IS A BETTER PRESIDENT THAN TRUMP WAS ON HIS BEST DAY!
Bookmarks