Science is a false God

[Polymath257]

How so? Really? We think all the known universal laws and time started with our universe. If multi-universe' exist and are older than our own, we are wrong on it all.

False. For example, string theory naturally fits into a multiverse description with one set of laws working throughout the multiverse. Most modern theories involving quantum gravity have *some* multiverse aspect to them, although the particulars vary widely.

Also, these multiverse theories do, in fact, fold into the Big Bang scenarios, but where the singularity of the non-quantum theory (general relativity) is smoothed out by quantum effects.

 

[We Never Know]

Depends on which of several multiverse theories turns out to be true. String theory has one version, the Everett interpretation has a very different version, loop quantum gravity has yet another. But all are physical theories with no supernatural at all.

If any multiverse theory happens to be true and that universe is older than ours, it shows what we thought didn't exist before the BBT probably did exist in that universe. Which means at best all we can say it all already existed there, but not here.

 

[Polymath257]

It would seem that you missed the thrust of my rejoinder.

"If you look at the um detail, details, of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer." -Richard Dawkins​

Accordingly, how is creation not empirical evidence for its Creator?

Why do I suspect this is a quote taken out of context? You might want to check your source to be sure it is accurate.

 

[We Never Know]

False. For example, string theory naturally fits into a multiverse description with one set of laws working throughout the multiverse. Most modern theories involving quantum gravity have *some* multiverse aspect to them, although the particulars vary widely.

Also, these multiverse theories do, in fact, fold into the Big Bang scenarios, but where the singularity of the non-quantum theory (general relativity) is smoothed out by quantum effects.

See my last post

 

[gnostic]

Aren't you doing the same? You presume when Moses originally wrote Genesis but you present no evidence for them.

(See my signature?)

I am not presuming anything; I am iterating what known traditions about Genesis being spread by Abrahamic religions.

According to traditions, both Jewish and Christian traditions, Moses was said to be author of Genesis.

And though I am iterating these traditions, I am also skeptical of such traditions, because I no longer believe in these traditions that accept Moses as the author of Genesis, or of Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus.

When authorship are in doubt, then I would not call Moses an “author”; instead Moses has been “attributed” to be the author.

And even when books are titled by names of prophets, it doesn’t mean they were authors of the books.

The other problem is that there are no Bronze Age sources. No writings of the Bible in any shape or form (eg clay or stone tablets, parchments, papyri, etc) exist in this period. There are no original Bronze Age Genesis or Exodus; all evidences of biblical texts, only exist from Iron Age period, from King Josiah to the early Second Temple period.

Take for instance, the Song Of Songs for instance. The book has no names in the book, but because for centuries, respective Jewish and Christian traditions have attributed the Song to King Solomon as its author, Solomon’s authorship have become accepted by the evangelist and orthodox churches, even though Solomon couldn’t have written it.

Studies in the linguistics have demonstrably shown that the vocabulary, idioms and syntax used in Song to be composed originally in Aramaic language, not Hebrew. That would indicate Song was written much later than Solomon.

In the New Testament, none of the named evangelists are the actual authors of the respective gospels. The gospels were actually written anonymously, and it wasn’t until 2nd century CE that church traditions ascribed the names to these gospels.

As to the epistles that have been attributed to Paul, less than half of them were authentic Paul’s authorship. The rest of epistles are in doubts.

 

[Polymath257]

If any multiverse theory happens to be true and that universe is older than ours, it shows what we thought didn't exist before the BBT probably did exist in that universe. Which means at best all we can say it all already existed there, but not here.

Which fits quite well into some of our theories. if anything, a multiverse would serve to *confirm* some of our ideas as opposed to refuting them.

 

[Maximilian]

These people were murders like your god.

If you're not going to answer my question directly how can this discussion continue?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Have you met people? The vast majority don't want anyone to tell them what to do or how to do it, especially God.

And God respects that. He doesn't force anyone to be good.

He also doesn't shield anyone from the disastrous consequences of their horrible choices. Why would he?

If you're not going to prove it how is anyone supposed to believe you?

After all, "That which can be claimed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

 

[Maximilian]

And though I am iterating these traditions, I am also skeptical of such traditions, because I no longer believe in these traditions that accept Moses as the author of Genesis, or of Exodus, Numbers and Leviticus.

Sure, you're certainly entitled to your prejudices . . .

 

[We Never Know]

False. For example, string theory naturally fits into a multiverse description with one set of laws working throughout the multiverse. Most modern theories involving quantum gravity have *some* multiverse aspect to them, although the particulars vary widely.

Also, these multiverse theories do, in fact, fold into the Big Bang scenarios, but where the singularity of the non-quantum theory (general relativity) is smoothed out by quantum effects.

Not false. According to what we know or think we know, time and universal laws didn't exist before the BBT. We can claim it didn't exist in our universe but then would it all be the same in each universe, including life?

 

[Polymath257]

Not false. According to what we know or think we know, time and universal laws didn't exist before the BBT. Then would it all be the same in each universe, including life?

That is *one* of the many theories we have. In fact, it is pretty much limited to a General Relativistic treatment. When quantum effects are introduced, it is no longer the case. The singularity of GR tends to be smoothed out allowing time to be extended backwards further.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If you're not going to answer my question directly how can this discussion continue?

Do I need to remind you--again--of the growing list of questions you are clearly ignoring?

Try the little alert flag in the upper right corner of the page next to your name. That tells you when someone has responded directly to you.

Glad I could help you.

You are welcome.

 

[Polymath257]

Sure, you're certainly entitled to your prejudices . . .

Yes, having a 'prejudice' towards verifiable evidence and the actual archeological record is so damaging to 'true' religion.

 

[We Never Know]

That is *one* of the many theories we have. In fact, it is pretty much limited to a General Relativistic treatment. When quantum effects are introduced, it is no longer the case. The singularity of GR tends to be smoothed out allowing time to be extended backwards further.

GR and all laws break down pre-BBT. However we can think and assume time could be or can be extended backwards but cant show it or test it. It's all speculative fantasy.

 

[Maximilian]

Well, for the classical theory, it gives *exactly* the same predictions as ordinary quantum mechanics (you realized that, right?). But, the problem is that it doesn't work with relativistic situations. In particular, it is fails when it comes to anti-matter and pair production (which we know exist because of observations at particle accelerators). pretty much no physicist in the last 50 years has considered it worthwhile because of that.

Philosophers seem to like it because it is 'deterministic', but since it isn't relativistic it simply isn't a realistic theory.

And absolutely no quantum theory of gravity has survived close scrutiny thus rendering your objections moot.

Demonstrably, then, QM is an embarrassingly feeble anchor for Atheism.

 

[gnostic]

Sure, you're certainly entitled to your prejudices . . .

And the JW are known for their objectivity and impartiality?

I have not met a group today more biased than that of JW.

 

[Polymath257]

GR and all laws break down pre-BBT. However we can think and assume time could be or can be extended backwards but cant show it or test it. It's all speculative fantasy.

Again, this depends on the specifics of quantum gravity. Some versions *do* allow information to make it through the stage of maximum contraction. But yes, at least at this point, this isn't testable with current technology.

All I am pointing out is that a multiverse would NOT require a complete overhaul of our ideas as you suggested. if there is a multiverse, there is an extension of time prior to our 'universe'.. But in this case, causality (to the extent it exists) is simply an aspect of the multiverse. The basic theological argument doesn't change.

 

[Polymath257]

And absolutely no quantum theory of gravity has survived close scrutiny thus rendering your objections moot.

Demonstrably, then, QM is an embarrassingly feeble anchor for Atheism.

Well, it is far better than Bohmian mechanics, that can't even deal with anti-matter.

But we *know* that QM is a non-causal theory, which destroys the 'first cause' argument for the existence of a deity. Of course, that argument has a host of other problems, but this adds one more.

And who said QM was the only 'anchor' for atheism? Or even the main one? It just shows that one of the 'anchors' for *theism* is, itself, feeble.

 

[We Never Know]

Again, this depends on the specifics of quantum gravity. Some versions *do* allow information to make it through the stage of maximum contraction. But yes, at least at this point, this isn't testable with current technology.

All I am pointing out is that a multiverse would NOT require a complete overhaul of our ideas as you suggested. if there is a multiverse, there is an extension of time prior to our 'universe'.. But in this case, causality (to the extent it exists) is simply an aspect of the multiverse. The basic theological argument doesn't change.

Acceptable. Yet if other universe's exist, so do laws and life which we may not have any clue about either because all we know are on this side of the fence.

 

[Maximilian]

Now, if a *pattern* of such predictions, made only by those believing in a certain religion and having accuracy on the level of the above, while similar predictions made by all others fail to be accurate, *then* I might believe what those making the predictions have to say.

And this would undermine your Atheism?