Again, I know there are a lot more quantum physicists who denounce the claims offered by Dr. Goswani but I found it very interesting. Just because the majority of scientists say one thing, doesn’t make it so. Let’s look at Capurnicus, he too was the minority in his day. So No this isn’t proof, but someone with some credentials is looking into and offering evidence. He’s no crack pot.
You need a citation that the idea of people returning to their ancestral homes for a tax census is absurd?
Again, the irony!
This list includes two alternate theories (the levirate marriage and the inheritance, although I have no idea why the Jews would care about that) and three theories that involve either an error in the Bible or an admission that at least one of the genealogies is made up. That doesn’t do much to advance your claim about the Bible being historical and Jesus’ lineage being accurate.
Of course you are. You do overlook everything else.
I have to admit that exchanges like this sets off some alarms:
“Goswami is convinced, along with a number of others who subscribe to the same view, that the universe, in order to exist, requires a conscious sentient being to be aware of it.”
Then…where did the first conscious sentient being come from?
This looks like a fairly commonplace re-casting of the typical Medieval proofs of God’s existence.
It also suggests that, at some time in the past, God was unconscious. Interesting.
Which just goes to show that you should always let sleeping gods lie.
He says “exist”, not “create”, so I don’t know how that is supposed to be an objection. What if I say that, the universe, in order to exist, requires that something exist; would you ask “where did the first thing come from”?
Given what you say above, I presume you mean the cosmological arguments. I would say it doesn’t, but it looks similar in type to Berkeley’s position.
I didn’t realize they did scientific experiments into quantum machanics in Medieval times. Interesting. Also the idea that outside of the multiverse there exists something from which the sentient being existed before and that the universe is simply its dream made real, allows for it to come from some place. It’s the snake eating its tail argument though. That’s the mystery. Where did it all really begin, if there existed something before the universe? My point is you asked for evidence and I would suggest this is on some level a tiny piece of evidence. The case of course isn’t solved, but…
Seeing as how quantum theory wouldn’t exist for several hundred years, they didn’t. He’s saying the comment is similar to philosophical arguments that were made about God in the Middle Ages. He didn’t say anything about expertiments.
I like to look at the very large and the very small and see the patterns that emerge. As a fiction writer I’m allowed to take large leaps and I imagine the question, from reading the article, that what if we are all equivalent to atomic particles existing (and informing), inside of a much larger scaled brain that is God? Please forgive me. I’ve seen an artisitic rendering of the universe from a distance and it resembles a brain cell, fairly closely. In the multiverse view, each universe is an individual cell, and black holes are synapses between them, sharing information. Information is sucked out of our universe through black holes and could in theory feed into another universe so, why not? If we are all connected, so are we connected to the universe and then the multiverse and to the brane (brain in my imagined proposal). So to go off point but I had to vent.
I think this is the point in the conservation where somebody is supposed to take out the bong.
I suppose I misunderstood his meaning. As if to suggest there was no difference in the medievel superstitious view of God and this new scienctific theory. I thought he was dismissing the data. Sorry.
I think that is what he’s saying, and a supposition is not the same thing as data.
At that point in the conversation it is usually time to put the bong away.
Puff, puff give, please. LOL! My point, I suppose, is that just because we can dismiss the classical view of God and even disprove it with simple logic, that it doesn’t mean there aren’t more complex and implicit notions of what God could be. I don’t think anyone will ever know the true nature of God, if God exists. But I enjoy imagining It.
I was under the impression that Dr. Goswani was using the scientific method of gathering data?
I agree- although I dismiss the complex ones along with the simple ones. At a certain point it stops being anything that is recognizably a god and just becomes a personification or a metaphor or something.
The article and the interview don’t include any data. It’s all interpretation and philosophy.
Perhaps, but as we evolve shouldn’t our understanding evolve as well? When was god ever really recognizable? I think theologians throughout time have been clear that no one will ever know the true nature of God. Yes, they have decided what God must be like, a long white beard (looking strikingly like Zeus) and rendering judgement and retribution from above, as if God is a seperate being. But what if that’s not the case? What if we are all God? To me that expands God into something more complex. It pushes the envelope a bit further is all.
I need to read it again, but I thought they mentioned experiments in the intro.
“And as they say in the world of science, Goswami has done his math. Marshalling evidence from recent research in cognitive psychology, biology, parapsychology and quantum physics…”
That suggest to me he’s gathering data.