Could an eventual discovery in physics "discover" god?

[jtd00123]

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.

[oe39]

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

[Praxising]

[ 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.

[bunny]

[ 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.

[borisp]

[ 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

[borisp]

[ 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.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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


[/ QUOTE ]

You lie, monkey boy, but not intellectually.

[Subfallen]

[ 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.

[borisp]

[ 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.

[m_the0ry]

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.