seventwofour
Well-known member
Yeah, I'm familiar with the multiverse theory from my philosophy courses, but I'm not familiar with string theory and the like.
600 years ago people still thought that the world was flat. 500 years ago people thought that the sun orbited the earth. people are getting smarter. answers to the universe are becoming clearer every day.
i, for one, am glad that religion is providing us all of these answers.
Much like a fish born in a soundproof and completely black tank would know the boundaries of the tank while having no way to perceive the world outside it, in a multiverse wed have no way of perceiving anything outside our universe hence how it could look like we appeared from nothing when that isnt the case.
Science is built upon empiricism. You're putting faith in the inerrancy of human observation.
The first part of your statement is just flat out wrong. The only place where one would potentially put faith in inerrancy of observation is at the level of individual research papers which I seriously doubt most people on this board have read more than a handful of.
Yeah, I'm familiar with the multiverse theory from my philosophy courses, but I'm not familiar with string theory and the like.
WRT to the multiverse.
In membrane-theory, all universes are created by collisions between branes. Each collision creates a new brane(universe) that is completely separate from the others except for the force of gravity. Interestingly enough, we have possible evidence of this type of interaction. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow
In quantum theory, the multiverse is vastly different. There is a unique universe for all possible histories and futures. Every time a random, quantum event occurs, a new world(universe) is created. You can easily envision this by looking into the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment. Before a measurement is taken, the cat exists in both states, dead and alive. Therefore, a separate universe must exist for each state.
To follow up on this, I wanted to say that I wasn't questioning the integrity of individuals working in scientific fields or discounting the great advances they've made for mankind. I was challenging the idea that every phenomenon that occurs in this universe and outside of it is observable by humans. Science does a great job with the tools that it has, but how can one be so sure that nothing exists outside of what we can empirically observe?
Agree with those indicating there need be no conflict between an understanding of science and religion. Whatever is true, we should seek it and not fear it. And we should probably be a hell of a lot more humble than we seem to act sometimes on both sides of that isle.
As a Christian, I think it's not advisable for Christian parents to teach their children YEC...except that they understand what it is. To my mind, you're just setting your kids up to leave the faith when they (might) someday realize that YEC is pretty looney. And if you've drilled into them that YEC is an article upon which your faith rests...? If you value your faith/religion, why undermine it so? OK, I think I understand the rationale and culture, but find it regrettable from both religious and scientific perspectives.
I find it fascinating that people will distrust science to the extent that they can actually believe we're incapable of determining whether the earth is more than 6,000 years old... But fuck it strap 'em to a chair and let a magic computer invoke a laser beam to slice open a flap in their cornea and burn off tissue inside your moving eyeball so you can go to the Orange Park mall and watch Adam Sandler flicks without glasses.
Where's a Louis CK diatribe when you need one...
Of course we can ask what came before. String theory, M-theory, multiverse theory, brane theory. These all show possible reasons for our existence.
The problem is that we can never go outside of our given universe. We can't look out into the multiverse. We will never know for certain what came before us.
I'd argue that it is equally intellectually disingenuous to attribute the beginning of our universe to an all powerful supernatural being. God of the gaps, and all that.
You make a supernatural being your brute fact. I make the universe mine.
This is where I disagree. The "God of the gaps" argument when it comes to the beginning of the universe doesnt really sway me. I dont think people are "filling in" God as the beginning of the universe based upon some ignorance. I think most people are filling in God at the beginning based upon their knowledge of science. The basic question of how can something come from nothing goes against what most of us learned when we were taught Newton in physics. Thus, God as creator of the universe is neither a "god of the gaps" or intellectually disingenuous. It's ascribing a supernatural phenomenon to what many feel must have been a supernatural event given our current knowledge of how the world works.
None of the several "Theory of Everything" answer the question of how something came out of nothing. If our universe came from the collision of two other universes, then where did those universes come from etc. The only possible explanations are that something actually came from nothing which is beyond explanation, or there has always been something, which is also beyond explanation.
You might counter that it is unacceptable to put faith in something outside of observation or explanation. However this is problematic since all of empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past. This premise cannot be known through observation. This is not to invalidate science, it is simply to remind scientists to be careful when dismissing outright things which are not based on observation.
None of the several "Theory of Everything" answer the question of how something came out of nothing. If our universe came from the collision of two other universes, then where did those universes come from etc. The only possible explanations are that something actually came from nothing which is beyond explanation, or there has always been something, which is also beyond explanation.
You might counter that it is unacceptable to put faith in something outside of observation or explanation. However this is problematic since all of empirical science rests on the premise that the future will resemble the past. This premise cannot be known through observation. This is not to invalidate science, it is simply to remind scientists to be careful when dismissing outright things which are not based on observation.