I’m always supportive of someone’s right to have a faith, to believe in a God, and to discuss that faith.
What I don’t understand is when I see someone trying to couple their faith - in effect, undermine it - by attempting to connect it to a poorly understood scientific theory and attempt to utilise that as a line of reasoning to rationalise said faith. If one’s initial scientific understanding is weak, one’s line of reasoning based on that is going to fail very quickly.
Why not just leave the science out of it and simply call it faith?
Is it not a natural impulse of man to rationalize and solve the world he lives in? Forget just the scientific method, how far would Homo sapiens have gotten on prayer alone?
That’s not really what I was talking about; I meant something more specific than that. Maybe I expressed myself badly but it’s late! I might try again tomorrow.
Whether or not any of the science I am trying to tag this on to exists I would still have a similar belief in God. My take on it is simply that God is a conscious force that exists in everything. I just find the science interesting and see how far I can take my imagination when connecting it to God.
Which is a shame. Science adjusts it’s view based on whats observed, faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.
*stolen, but not quoted for appeal to authority.
It exists on a rather negligible scale. I overgeneralized when I said it matters because it exists. The fact that anything exists matters, but something doesn’t matter in the grand scheme just because it exists, as long as something else exists.
I don’t deny any science that has been proven. Nor am I afraid of any science. Do you think science will provide an explanation for existence? Seems unlikely that it will be proven why something came from nothing.. An uncaused first cause is the best explanation IMO. I do not know why that is a shame.
Did you look at the thread I linked to? You can plot anything on as many dimensions as you feel like. What does that have to do with God?
Does God need more dimensions than other things? Or just a lot of them? What for? If I can draw a plot of a laundry basket in ten dimensions, does that mean my laundry basket is God? What if string theory is false, and all of physics can be described using four dimensions? Does that mean there is no God?
Where did the infinitely conscous force come from, then? Did it come out of nothing? Did it always exist? If the infinitely conscious force came out of nothing, then it must have come out of nothing for no reason, right? Because if there was a reason it came out of nothing, then wouldn’t that be the uncasued first cause? But if the infinitely conscious force always existed, isn’t that another way of saying that the unverse always existed?
And why should the force that created the universe be conscious, or infinite? Why couldn’t it be unconscious, or finite? It’s not even an “it”, is it?
This is what I was complaining about earlier, when you use the word “God” to describe this concept, you’re surreptitiously assigning qualities to this universal force that you have no right to assume.
Sorry, it does sound unintentionally negative. Still, many people say the word “God” with almost uncountable reasons. I’ve heard many describe God as a type of creative force before, but for most reasons these days, it’s just another way to equate what YOU might think is a god is the same as what someone else does.
I think that everyone who claims to believe in a god has their own, personal interpretation of their preferred god and that is what they worship.
And yes, like you said, this vast universe, insanely powerful, unpredictable, etc., I do wonder where it came from too. I’m not really sure that matters sometimes.
No it doesn’t. An “infinitely conscious force” is a far more complicated entity than the chaotic cloud of superheated plasma that filled the universe after the big bang. Believing in God as an uncaused first cause is like believing that a complicated pocket watch can spontaneously pop into existence in the middle of a desert.
No. If M-theory is correct, everything needs those 11 dimensions to be plotted out. Including us. Nothing can be truly plotted out with just 3 dimensions.
There are certainly theories dealing with the concept of “something from nothing” - instantaneous particle pairs popping into existence and annihilating themselves, for example, despite there be absolutely no influence on what is simply an empty space. Stephen Hawking has theorized how this explains that the universe could, indeed, spontaneously form from nothing with no outside agency needed.
I think a better way for me to describe what I meant earlier - certainly there’s nothing wrong with your having a faith and, indeed, talking about it. The problem is that the science you’re trying to marry it to isn’t science - it’s just an incorrect use of some buzzwords you’ve heard, and closer to Star Trek than to reality. Dimensions as places being an obvious example (not that there aren’t alternate universe theories out there - though there’s no evidence for such - based on theories of probability and the cosmological principle) but these have nothing to do with the dimensions we theorize when discussing string theory.
Science has suffered quite a disservice from sci-fi shows referring to alternate universes as alternate dimensions. It results in people posting messageboard threads attempting to rationalize their faith based on some sci-fi terms they heard and a few words they remember from popular science books. And it’s that situation which results in scientifically literate people answering that your god does not exist - because you’ve decided to use their language to show that he does, and have done so very badly.
That’s not a criticism of your scientific knowledge - nothing wrong with that at all. Nobody expects you to understand string theory (hell, there aren’t many people in the world who do); but attempting to leverage something you don’t understand as reasoning for something else just results in physicists saying “well done, you’ve just talked us OUT of God’s existence!” It’s kinda like a non-musician talking about musical notes in terms of colour and then saying “therefore God exists in the colour yellow”.
Depending on your aims, of course. I get that you get that you don’t understand this stuff (hell, who does?) and that you’re trying to learn more in an attempt to fit it in with your faith. That’s fine (unlikely to work on a messageboard, but there’s nothing wrong with it). But you’d probably have an easier time of it by separating the two, and talking about your faith in terms of faith, and asking questions to enhance your understanding of the science, without coming out with a series of “gotcha!” mini-reasonings why you believe the latter supports the former in response to people attempting to explain it.
Then again, feel free to ignore me. You can take any approach you like; I’m just wondering aloud about the chosen approach and its - to me - ineffective nature of communicating anything. If it works for you, go for it (though you won’t get anyone agreeing with you - but that doesn’t have to matter).
What is “It” in the sentence “It’s raining.” ? This “It” is just a grammatical device to form a sentence. I’ve always thought of “God” in much the same way, as a utility word to substitute in the convenient sentence “X created the Universe.” It sounds like OP’s view may be similar to mine.
As someone who often has trouble just visualizing 3 dimensions, I did click on the Youtube. Explication of dimensions 1 and 2 was so tedious I almost gave up, but persevered until the beginning of Dimension 5 by which time I’d decided the lecturer was not only tedious and misleading, but simply wrong.
