It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

M-theory: Doubts linger over godless multiverse

page: 2
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:35 PM
link   
I feel that no theory could ever disprove the existance of god in fairness. If a precise mathamatical model existed which described exactly how the universe started, and everything in it etc it would still be failing to tell us WHY we are here, it would just tell us how we are here. besides what good is a mathamatical model on its own. simply observing an equation wont make its described effects occur ie. somthing must have initiated the sequence following the said master equation




posted on Sep, 16 2010 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by C1OUD
I feel that no theory could ever disprove the existance of god in fairness. If a precise mathamatical model existed which described exactly how the universe started, and everything in it etc it would still be failing to tell us WHY we are here, it would just tell us how we are here. besides what good is a mathamatical model on its own. simply observing an equation wont make its described effects occur ie. somthing must have initiated the sequence following the said master equation


That may very well be true, on the other hand no theory can prove the existance of god, people who believe in god/gods go on faith.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
reply to post by C1OUD
 


I feel that no theory could ever disprove the existance of god in fairness.

That is correct. However, a properly formulated theory of physics must exclude God as a factor, for otherwise it would explain nothing. 'God did it' is not a helpful or enlightening explanation, except for keeping little children quiet. Even then, it doesn't always work.


What good is a mathamatical model on its own? Simply observing an equation won't make its described effects occur ie. somthing must have initiated the sequence following the said master equation

So you're not acquainted with the models, then. There are models that suggest the universe had no beginning in time, that it is finite but has no boundary, and so on. In such models, it is meaningless to speak of 'initiating the sequence'; what need for a God in a cosmos that has no beginning?


If a precise mathamatical model existed which described exactly how the universe started, and everything in it etc it would still be failing to tell us WHY we are here.

Is religion any different? I was raised a Christian, but nowhere in the course of my fairly extensive religious instruction do I remember being taught why God created the world, or why we are here, except vaguely 'to do His will'. We are never told God's overarching intentions and purposes. Any attempt to find them out is met with impressively mysterious nonsense like 'never question the will of the Lord' and 'some things are not for mere mortals to know'.

I know quite a bit about other religions, and as far as I know, they are as silent as Christianity on the subject of why we exist. Kindly correct me if I am wrong.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 01:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Or, someone is manipulating him for their own gain.

The dude told us to fear aliens. That doesn't sound like Stephen Hawking at all.



posted on Sep, 18 2010 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by Aquarius1
 


Or, someone is manipulating him for their own gain.

The dude told us to fear aliens. That doesn't sound like Stephen Hawking at all.


It is interesting, if you remember Carl Sagan said some pretty strange things in the last years of his life, especially after he knew he was dying, maybe he wanted to impart some truth in his legacy.



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by AstyanaxThat is correct. However, a properly formulated theory of physics must exclude God as a factor, for otherwise it would explain nothing. 'God did it' is not a helpful or enlightening explanation, except for keeping little children quiet. Even then, it doesn't always work.


I am not understanding the line of rationale that has led you to this conclusion, i.e., that it "must exclude God as a factor" as, by all indications, it is that it is God who has devised the physics of all things and so, in our efforts to divine an understanding of the physics of ourselves, our surroundings and our interactions with them, we come just that must closer to understanding &/or at least knowing of the magnitude of Gods' as of yet incomprehensible abilities as the Creator of all things and beings.

As such, it is the empirical evidence that it is God who enables us with the ability to discern an understanding of the physics of all things, understand ourselves and Gods' works as God would be, by definition, intrinsic to each and every aspect of existence.



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
We don't need to invoke God to explain the universe. Does that mean that God doesn't exist? No, because physics has nothing to do with God so God does not need to enter in to the equation. People are entitled to believe what they like about God, maybe most physicists don't believe in God, maybe some do. It's irrelevant though.
edit on 13-10-2010 by john_bmth because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to posts by just an allusion and john_bmth
 

Oh, I like this. You two are arguing contrary to one another in an attempt to prove the same point. I'll just leave you to settle it between yourselves, shall I?

Just an allusion, your way of looking at science was quite popular back in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, when it was still called 'natural philosophy'. But even the natural philosophers weren't content to sit back and say 'God did it.' They endeavoured to work out how God did it. No miracles allowed.



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to posts by just an allusion and john_bmth
 

Oh, I like this. You two are arguing contrary to one another in an attempt to prove the same point. I'll just leave you to settle it between yourselves, shall I?

Just an allusion, your way of looking at science was quite popular back in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, when it was still called 'natural philosophy'. But even the natural philosophers weren't content to sit back and say 'God did it.' They endeavoured to work out how God did it. No miracles allowed.


Sorry for the confusion, I was reading the first page when I made that post, it wasn't intended to be directed at anyone in particular, more a general response.



posted on Oct, 13 2010 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to posts by just an allusion and john_bmth
 

Oh, I like this. You two are arguing contrary to one another in an attempt to prove the same point. I'll just leave you to settle it between yourselves, shall I?

Just an allusion, your way of looking at science was quite popular back in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries, when it was still called 'natural philosophy'. But even the natural philosophers weren't content to sit back and say 'God did it.' They endeavoured to work out how God did it. No miracles allowed.


Oh, I may allow for a miracle here and there, though I can still perceive God as being the progenitor of Physics and will continue to decipher the means of Gods' methodology for myself.



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1   >>

log in

join