Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

In the past decade the exponential growth in technology has created a similar acceleration in the discoveries regarding theoretical physics. Things like M-Theory, discovery of black holes of predictable size at the center of every galaxy, and a lot of other things that are seemingly impossible to make sense of.

Getting back on track, the question is on a long enough timescale there will be some discovery which explains existance and explain those questions that bewilder 99.5% of people right now.

Once this discovery is made will there not be a one true god? It would simply be a religion of science with answers to all the questions one person could ever want the answer to about the universe.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
In the past decade the exponential growth in technology has created a similar acceleration in the discoveries regarding theoretical physics. Things like M-Theory, discovery of black holes of predictable size at the center of every galaxy, and a lot of other things that are seemingly impossible to make sense of.

Getting back on track, the question is on a long enough timescale there will be some discovery which explains existance and explain those questions that bewilder 99.5% of people right now.

Once this discovery is made will there not be a one true god? It would simply be a religion of science with answers to all the questions one person could ever want the answer to about the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

What you describe could happen I suppose, but wouldn't qualify as God, almost by definition. The term God is typically used to invoke a super-natural being responsible for the universe and (to varying degrees) its function. There is nothing supernatural about the scenario you describe. If anything, the scenario you describe would provide the most compelling evidence that's theoretically possible for God's non-existence.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

I dont agree that the question of god's existence is about finding answers. It's a metaphysical question about whether the universe was created by some intelligent being (and what characteristics that being has).

If science somehow discovered that there was not only no need for a creator but that the universe "just happened" then I dont think it would be supplanting God. I think it would be eliminating him.

I guess science could play the part of an unintelligent god, if there was some "higher power" which caused the universe or some such. Not if God is taken to be loving, personal, all the other things people usually refer to when they speak of God.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

If we ever reach the point where we know 'everything', and have answers to all questions, then by definition we would be omniscient - we would BE 'God'.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

Maybe God is hiding in the "dark matter". Maybe the "dark energy" has some form of sentience. Who knows? Only time will tell. Or maybe it won't, since our brains might not understand what we find.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]

It would simply be a religion of science with answers to all the questions one person could ever want the answer to about the universe.


[/ QUOTE ]

Whatever answer you get through finite means will produce another question. Only omniscience can answer all questions. But atheists are human too and can't really go very long without hope.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Once this discovery is made will there not be a one true god? It would simply be a religion of science with answers to all the questions one person could ever want the answer to about the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is God, by definition: Truth. The Way Things Work.

The idea that "God" is necessarily an individualized Being is limited to only some cultures/religions. God is, in Christianity as well as almost every other mystical religion, defined as "light," or "creative force."

Religion has always been science - trying to figure out TWTW. If you read the stories in the first part of Scripture, they explain why the sky is blue, why there are seashells in the desert, why there are always more wolves than deer.

God isn't "supernatural" there is no such thing. What's more natural than God? Looking for the afterlife? The "Heavenly realm?" Call it Dark Matter.

You are, sir, right on.



(yeah - I'm old)

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
why there are always more wolves than deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a workable ecosystem?

luckyme

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
why there are always more wolves than deer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is that a workable ecosystem?

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I messed that one up, didn't I?

::ahem:: More deer than wolves.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Once this discovery is made will there not be a one true god? It would simply be a religion of science with answers to all the questions one person could ever want the answer to about the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I'm concerned, Hinduism could be proven correct!

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

Speaking of physics discovering God. Has anyone heard of the multiverse theory? It was described in Rees' "Just Six Numbers", and he claims that the because the laws of physics seem to be fine-tuned for life (if gravity were a little stronger, the universe would callapse on itself after the big bang, you would have to read the rest of the book for more examples) To explain this phenomenon, some scientists say that there are an infinite number or universes, each one with slightly different physics, and we just happen to live in the one that supports life. This makes some radical theories, such as infinite copies of ourselves to a god-like being evolving in one of these universes. Of course, making an infinite number of universes to describe the qualities of our universe is a little strange, but it is a popular theory among pysicists right now. I personally like Paul Davies theory better.

I suspect that if there is a God, that it is more likely he/she is a deist God then the god of most monotheistic religions. I also think it is more probable, looking at our world, that this God is indifferent rather then benevolent. The question is, what if this God is the exact opposite of benvolent? Kind of scary if you think about it, and the more I think about it the more I hope that there isn't one at all.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

there isn't even a word that combines science and theology

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
there isn't even a word that combines science and theology

[/ QUOTE ]

You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense is theology science? It may have been called science once, but it doesnt seem to fit the concept too well imo.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Only omniscience can convince me to completely delude myself. But atheists are human too, and so they also will experience complete nothingness when they die.

[/ QUOTE ]
FYP

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there isn't even a word that combines science and theology

[/ QUOTE ]...It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is also only recently that scientists have learned to produce such things as vaccines.

You know what's funny to me? Whenever a truly devout religious nutcase happens to have a heart attack, do you know where they go? They go to the hospital. They don't care if the doctor is atheist, gay, whatever. They pray to God, if only to relieve their overwhelming anxiety that they are about to die.

They seek the help of an experienced physician. This physician has most likely studied the matter from a purely rational perspective, that they cannot even employ in simple cockfighting matters over the internet, much less during the pressure of a life threatening situation. This physician has spent countless hours studying the details of human anatomy, using real (live?) corpses, putting him or herself in situations that are grossly unimaginable from the perspective of the neophyte. This physician cannot accept information without evidence, because experience has shown that this practice leads to disaster.

And yet when it really matters, I bet maniacs such as NotReady turn to these doctors far, FAR more readily than they turn to anyone educated in religious nonsense. And it is in this moment that you prove to all others your intellectual dishonesty.

For what it's worth, I thank my lucky stars that I live in a country where this is intrinsically possible, as it should be every man or woman's right to be thought a fool. And I thank God for my right to laugh at these people.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]

And it is in this moment that you prove to all others your intellectual dishonesty.


[/ QUOTE ]

You lie, monkey boy, but not intellectually.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You lie, monkey boy, but not intellectually.

[/ QUOTE ]

What will it take to convince you that most people don't experience life as essentially a reaction to Christianity? Observe---you have spent 30+ years interpreting everything through the Christian paradigm and exercising elaborate confirmation biases to reinforce your Christian beliefs. Most people DO NOT DO THIS! They HAVE NOT DONE THIS!

Nonetheless, I do sympathize with you, because I have been there, done that. Remember, until I was 21 I had no serious acquaintance with a single human who denied the divinity of Jesus! So I know how narrowly one can parameterize life, given enough time.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And it is in this moment that you prove to all others your intellectual dishonesty.


[/ QUOTE ]

You lie, monkey boy, but not intellectually.

[/ QUOTE ]
You caught my clever misuse of the word "prove"... *golf clap*

Here is a clue: pay attention to the argument, not the semantics.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

No, never.

We cannot agree on a definition of God in even a behavioral sense. This is because, as bunny said, God's existence is a metaphysical question and not one based on anything observable. There will never be a disproof of God either for the same reason.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
You know what's funny to me? Whenever a truly devout religious nutcase happens to have a heart attack, do you know where they go? They go to the hospital. They don't care if the doctor is atheist, gay, whatever. They pray to God, if only to relieve their overwhelming anxiety that they are about to die.

[/ QUOTE ]
Prove this.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense is theology science? It may have been called science once, but it doesnt seem to fit the concept too well imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, which is why I used "everydayspeak" to refer to that pesky vernacular we all use in our daily lives. It's why fundies think "theory" means "guess." It doesn't. In science, theory is an explanation of obervable or predictable phenomena. The theory of aerodynamics doesn't mean "maybe things can fly." It is the explanation of that - as well as other things. "Theory of evolution" doesn't mean "hey we think maybe stuff might have evolved." Evolution is an obervable and predictable phenomenon, the "theory of it" just explains how it happens, imperfectly as of now, but we're getting there.

Now, as to "science." Like "theory" it has a basic meaning beyond everday useage. In the vernacular "science" connotes the lab/test tube, complicated equations on a blackboard image.

But in my dictionary, that very narrow definition is second to the basic and longest-understood definition:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws."

It's interesting, don't you think, that this definition says "facts or truths." A theologian is definitely an expert in the science of theology. He or she will know the basic tenets of many religions and philosophies, read and write multiple languages, including one or two ancient ones, be as much linguist, archeologist and cultural anthropologist as religionist. Like any other doctor of any science, they may be a generalist or they will specialize. Because the field is so immense, most specialize and become intensely familiar with one religion or one subset of a religion, or one aspect of one subset -

True theology is science and has been considered such for hundreds of years, long before any so-called "hard" sciences were ever included in the curricula of colleges. So, BTW, is Philosophy. Also, if you decide to become a librarian, you will need a Master's degree in Library Science.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]
In what sense is theology science? It may have been called science once, but it doesnt seem to fit the concept too well imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, which is why I used "everydayspeak" to refer to that pesky vernacular we all use in our daily lives. It's why fundies think "theory" means "guess." It doesn't. In science, theory is an explanation of obervable or predictable phenomena. The theory of aerodynamics doesn't mean "maybe things can fly." It is the explanation of that - as well as other things. "Theory of evolution" doesn't mean "hey we think maybe stuff might have evolved." Evolution is an obervable and predictable phenomenon, the "theory of it" just explains how it happens, imperfectly as of now, but we're getting there.

Now, as to "science." Like "theory" it has a basic meaning beyond everday useage. In the vernacular "science" connotes the lab/test tube, complicated equations on a blackboard image.

But in my dictionary, that very narrow definition is second to the basic and longest-understood definition:

"a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws."

It's interesting, don't you think, that this definition says "facts or truths." A theologian is definitely an expert in the science of theology. He or she will know the basic tenets of many religions and philosophies, read and write multiple languages, including one or two ancient ones, be as much linguist, archeologist and cultural anthropologist as religionist. Like any other doctor of any science, they may be a generalist or they will specialize. Because the field is so immense, most specialize and become intensely familiar with one religion or one subset of a religion, or one aspect of one subset -

True theology is science and has been considered such for hundreds of years, long before any so-called "hard" sciences were ever included in the curricula of colleges. So, BTW, is Philosophy. Also, if you decide to become a librarian, you will need a Master's degree in Library Science.

[img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

you're taking two concepts and treating them as one.
The 'science of sleeping in a hammock' does not make sleepin g in one 'science'. It means the study of it done 'scientifically'.
'Science of Theology' works the same way. Theology remains theology, but it can be studied scientifically just as hammock-dosing can. Science does not become part of the theology nor does studying an ant scientifically make me an ant or it a scientist.

luckyme

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]

you're taking two concepts and treating them as one.
The 'science of sleeping in a hammock' does not make sleepin g in one 'science'. It means the study of it done 'scientifically'.
'Science of Theology' works the same way. Theology remains theology, but it can be studied scientifically just as hammock-dosing can. Science does not become part of the theology nor does studying an ant scientifically make me an ant or it a scientist.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The part you bolded, the definition, copied right from the dictionary.
2. "Science" has been defined this way for at least a couple hundred years.
3. Read for comprehension, please.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

No, those answers only answer "how" whereas religion claims to know "why" and then thrown in a bunch of "how" mumbo-jumbo to try and make itself look legit. But even without the "how" part of religion, people would still want to find meaning where there is none.

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
there isn't even a word that combines science and theology

[/ QUOTE ]

You will be surprised to know, that it is technically the "science of theology." It's only recently that everydayspeak has confined "sciences" to labs and test tubes.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is bogus... cults leeching credibility

Re: Could an eventual discovery in physics \"discover\" god?
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

you're taking two concepts and treating them as one.
The 'science of sleeping in a hammock' does not make sleepin g in one 'science'. It means the study of it done 'scientifically'.
'Science of Theology' works the same way. Theology remains theology, but it can be studied scientifically just as hammock-dosing can. Science does not become part of the theology nor does studying an ant scientifically make me an ant or it a scientist.

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
1. The part you bolded, the definition, copied right from the dictionary.
2. "Science" has been defined this way for at least a couple hundred years.
3. Read for comprehension, please.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) The bolding was in your original.
2) The Art of Physics ... doesn't mean we pull it from the science dept.
I wasn't disagreeing with that specific definition of the word 'science', I was pointing out that it's an equivocation fallacy to use the word 'science' in the two different ways you were in your claims.

What you're doing is claiming that my joyfulness shows that I prefer the same sex.

[ QUOTE ]
True theology is science ..

[/ QUOTE ] going to the 'no real scotsman' for help.

If we allow your selected definition of a method of study turn the endeavor under examination to the category of 'science' in the sense that physics is, then all endeavors are science. It's irrelevant whether theology is 'science' or not, your proof was what I questioned.

sorry my analogy wasn't clearer,

luckyme