Will String theory eliminate God ?

Will String theory eliminate God ?


First as always a Disclaimer>>>>>>>>With all due respect this thread while not advanced or complicated is concerned with &#8216;special&#8217; subject matter that is generally not discussed in lay circles. I am assuming that the reader has a basic background of knowledge in this and related subjects so I will not waste our time to fill in basic information that concerns astrophysics astronomy cosmology theology philosophy etc. However I did fill in some gaps that may not be well known even to the well read person interested in such things.<<<<<<<<<

Glossary; MA&#8217;s = Malicious atheists. That is atheists that have an agenda to promote hate of all religious belief especially Modern Christianity. It generally denoted a person dedicated to making rude, taunting comments concerning God or religious belief. An MA is the direct opposite of a moderate atheist who thank god are in the great majority and in my experience are good moral folk who are by and large better educated than the average population.

GID; Is an abbreviation for &#8216;God the Intelligent Designer&#8216;. I am in the process of trade marking/copyrighting the word. It usually denotes a somewhat deist form of God, but can be a non-deist form of God if specified.

>>>> NOTE to ALL readers. If you want so skip the entire body of the thread the main gist is this; What are the implications of String theory on standard big bang based theology as well as general apologetic religious belief, specifically Christianity and spirituality?

Will String theory eliminate God ?

Despite the opinion of a few MA&#8217;s here the KCA has and does provide positive, valid evidence for the existence of God. Of course the KCA is a cosmological argument. I use both cosmological arguments (best evidence) and ontological arguments (good evidence)*. For those of you that haven&#8217;t had to suffer semester hours of philosophy classes the difference between a cosmological argument and a ontological argument (for the existence of God) is that the Ontological Argument is that it is a deductive argument that asserts to be a priori, in other words it claims that its premises can be known independent of experience, using only logic and language (I have to chuckle when some of our more philosophy challenged members claim that both the cosmological arguments and the ontological arguments are devoid of logic!). I usually ignore such comments because to attempt a correction or a rebuttal is a waste of time.

Anyway compare the Ontological argument to the Cosmological Argument which is a posteriori argument. That is the only difference in most cases, i.e. one is an a priori argument and the Cosmological argument is a posteriori argument. However the latter was not the object of this thread and was meant as background information only. What I am concerned with is the implications of sciences new darling String Theory as applied to the standard theist friendly Big Bang model. For example; Is string theory a challenge to KCA based theology due to the KCA relying on classical physics and a standard hot big bang model?

Additionally its obvious that many atheist physicists are desperately attempting to remove the currently held idea that the universe &#8216;began&#8217; at some point in &#8217;time&#8217;. If one can remove that preeminent idea of creation (to say the least!) String theory along with or combined with quantum gravity are the favorite method to excise God and creation from the universe due to String Theories ability to give a mathematical (but sans all empirical evidences) way to sidestep a beginning and replace it with a cyclic (or similar) infinite series of beginnings. Hawking&#8217;s new books are examples of such a theory. However, its not just Hawking, there are five or six &#8216;stringy&#8217; atheist theoretical physicists and most are eminent in their field that hold stringy theories to be near fact. They need to, because many of them have a lifetime of work trying to vindicate this scary theory (scary because it has no empirical evidence to support it!)

However the current and proposed string based ideas are truly in the realm of bad theories (IMOAO)*****, unlike the theistic friendly standard big bang model hereafter referred to as &#8216;sbbm&#8216;. Yes I know what a theory is. MA&#8217;s are fond of attempting to belittle theists of all educational backgrounds from GED holders to multi PhDs because some theist friendly scientists and Christian apologists do not accept theory as fact. Its an unavoidable fact that sbbm is securely rooted in empirical science and has the math to back it up as well. The same can not be said for theistic unfriendly string theory.***


Today, String theorists are laboring on an reason and for the origins big bang itself. Nevertheless, their methods are purely speculative. Even though they use established physical fact and theory, they assume background spaces and &#8217;devices&#8217; (that can be mathematical or physical) which we have no way to observe, unlike the theistic friendly sbbm which is rich in observation confirmed verification of the theory. The latest version of string theory is called M theory. The M is short for Membrane****. The theory of interacting membranes is purely speculative and simply amounts to a highly mathematical wonderland that is comparable to theology due to the level of faith required to believe the non empirical theories! Epistemologically it&#8217;s the same as God creating the universe. I feel that we should retain the sbbm and be highly skeptical of any theory that proposes to usurp it using an theory that until very produced not one verifiable prediction (maybe the court is still out on that one). To embrace a theory that has NO empirical evidence to support it is akin to science being the new theology.

**** Brane Definition: In theoretical physics, a brane (short for membrane) is an object which can have any number of allowed dimensions. Branes are most popular for their presence in string theory, where it is a fundamental object, along with the string.

***** IMOAO in my opinion and others. In my tongue in cheek fabrication abbv, I was drawing attention to the heaps of professional, both secular and spiritual, resistance to string theory even with the left wing religion hating media tour de force that is pushing it down our throats. This has been going on for over 20 years (a guess). Its time for string theory to put up or shut up. If there is no empirical evidence forthcoming from CERN or the many experiments, its time place it in the perspective it deserves, and that is well from the lime light of cutting edge science.

Rev. A.

 

Honey, it's a good OP, but most people are unfamiliar with string theory.
No one can ever know if God is real. It's a matter of faith.

Very good OP though.....Rated 5 stars.

 

the thread is garbage.

Ontological argument has nothing to do with branes as it is closer to a priori based on accepted theory versus experience.

The ontological argument in reality cannot exist with a priori knowledge as the debate is dependent on accepting what cannot be proven.

Both arguments you posted are garbage.

Science will uproot theology is the argument that is closer to fact which can be a posteriori but you are imposing a contest between existent theoretical beliefs without accepting that both are a priori.

The OP is lacking any integrity.

 

Thank you Trinnity, how have you been? I guess we travel in different circles eh? Hey, I rate your reply 6 stars because you manage to &#8216;kind of&#8217; disagree and do it in a very kind way, you get your point across clearly! I know that my views are frowned upon by fundamentalist Christians* who have pure faith and do not need quantifiers such as evidences for the existence of God. I sure envy those beautiful religious folks that have that mega level of faith. Jesus spoke often of faith and it&#8217;s a main requirement of the Christian religion. I truly believe if one could have pure faith he or she could influence matter/mass. As a matter of fact some quantum theory interpretations tell us that is a fact. but I digress! Heck even some atheists don&#8217;t like to mix and match science and religion! But I believe it will be the next big thing, i.e. the merging of logical positivism, which lends itself to secularism and metaphysics, the foundation of religious belief and spiritualism. Thanks again for your reply!

Rev.A.

 

apparently, not a person youu know, is of pure faith!

or we would have read about them

Thanks again for your reply!


but I can walk on water and teach anyone how.










.










..










































freeze it first!







.



.
.

 

ooooooops................... i posted before qualifying the assumption and basically put my own foot in my own mouth....................

to freeze that water (using common sense), mankind (anyone of us) can influence matter/mass........................ and the only belief is 'i can'



i sory.........

 

What is the "string theory"? What is "god"? How works the mechanism called "eliminate" in this context?

http://youtu.be/QFlKx3YPL5I

 

I would be jealous of too! I love praise from an attractive woman&#8230;too bad you ain&#8217;t got none, and I mean NONE. Ha ha! Ahhhh&#8216;&#8230;As far as my thread goes, compared to the reply its smells like a rose times a thousand. In other words your trollish reply is deceitfully rotten.

That makes no sense at all. Where did I say anything about a correlation between a subatomic structure and form of argument? What rank nonsense!

What? Again that makes no sense. An Ontological argument by its very nature is only valid if it is logical. And what do you mean that debate is dependent on accepting what can not be proven? Classical debate can be won by proving a idea correct. Why am I having to tutor you ?

Ahhh the rose! Please! I am afraid you have zero knowledge of any concept in the thread. Even though I provided background information, enough to discuss the subject intelligently, you somehow come off as if you are completely ignorant of even the most basic of concepts.

Imposing a contest? What does that mean? Again you are making zero sense. It seems you do not know the difference between a priori and...well to be frank, everything you have said so far amounts to word salad babble.

Again you make no sense. What exactly do you mean by lacking integrity? This subject is discussed in universities and there are both scholarly papers and popular books written on the subject. If the concept is not your problem with the thread perhaps you think there is factual errors in it? Can you show one factual error in the thread? You are exposing yourself as a hater and not only a hater, you are a hater that does not even understand the subjects that he criticizes! no concept of even basic science theology or physics.

Rev.A.

 

A lot of people who attack string theory have no idea of the extremely provocative and enticing observations and analyses that led to string theory. They are so enticing (to those who understand them) that it's very hard to believe that string theory is totally wrong.

But still string theorists are playing a dangerous game. String theory is all but unverifiable, and it has so far been a failure of pan-galactic proportions in the one area that it was specifically intended to clarify, namely the question of why the so-called physical constants have the vaules they have.

 

I will not reply to another post that is deceitful, trollish or just plain mean. Additionally if its too far out of line (i.e. insulting) it will be reported and or the member placed on ignore. Jesus I so miss face to face convo, people are so much nicer when they can not hide behind internet anonymity. I would much rather have a normal kind discussion where mutual respect reigns instead of mutual hatred.

Rev.A.

 

We agree!!! Hey maybe this will be the start of a beautiful relationship? Ha ha. We rarely agree eh? BTW, did you see where string theory finally made a verifiable prediction recently? After what? Fifteen years ? I am a bit skeptical of that claim but have not have had time to check it out.

Rev.A.

 

Oha

http://youtu.be/OVnmIbzExOA

 

WRONG!

The Kal&#257;m cosmological argument :[9]
1 - Everything that has a beginning of its existence has a cause of its existence.
2 - The universe has a beginning of its existence.
Therefore:
3 - The universe has a cause of its existence.
4 - If the universe has a cause of its existence then that cause is God.
Therefore:
5 - God exists.


Too many assumptions:

1 - #1 - Not everything has a cause. Radioactive decay does not have a cause. To assume that everything has a beginning has a cause is just being plain ignorant.
2 - The universe may or may not even have a beginning. There may be multiple universes. We simply do not know enough at this time.
3 - Quantum mechanics allows for quantum particles to appear and exist for a short time before annihilating. This may be the cause of the Big Bang - no 'god' needed.
3 - #4 is the classic God of the Gaps....When we do not know something, we say 'god' did it.

This KCA nonsense, which has been debunked by many people, is neither positive, nor valid evidence for the existence of 'god'

 

No one has 100% faith. Read your bible. Even our science teaches us the same thing, and that is that nothing in this universe is 100% certain. If you are a teacher I highly recommend anyone within range of your teaching certificate home school their kids. However, I HIGHLY doubt you are qualified to teach.

reva










.










..










































freeze it first!







.



.
.[/QUOTE]

 

I dont do Utube or vids.

reva

 

Let me translate: I dont want to learn.

 

Sorry. I rewrote my post if you didn't notice because I was not getting my point across.

String theory is very provocative but it has major problems.

 

Let me translate: I will not debate anyone who has opposing ideas to mine.

 

Well even if the KCA were not nonsense, it can not be considered evidence in any way.

It's clearly intended to be an a priori philosophical argument.

 

Perhaps you should explain this to the rev

 

With all due respect, when someone claims a valid philosophical argument is 'nonsense' it detracts from their creditability IMO. Maybe not their credibility as much as admitting in an Freudian slip some type of inferiority complex? I just seems to detract from the persons general wellness and in addition just sours the conversation from the start. Anyway; The KCA has never been defeated, primarily because its premises have not been proven wrong. However this thread is not to discuss the KCA, it&#8217;s to discuss how string theory may impact the KCA and other cosmological and ontological arguments if ST is correct. String theory if vindicated may harm the KCA by removing the need for a beginning of the Universe. If the universe did not begin to exist then why is there a need for a &#8216;cause&#8217; (God) ? In the KCA the &#8216;cause&#8217; that caused the universe to begin to exist is an irreplaceable component. It's as important as any of the first three or main premises. If String theory and its related theories etc can remove the need for a &#8216;cause&#8217; I would admit that the KCA at least the way I understand it, would no longer be viable evidence. Craig and Koon (both well qualified Christian Apologists PhDs are cheerleaders for their versions of the KCA) may disagree however.

Rev.A.

 

The KCA is not valid or sound. I'm sure you can find reasons why.

In fact why don't you find a couple of the common dismissals of it and show us where you think they're wrong. I'm sure it would be instructive.

 

Not in case there was no time "before" the universe started to exist. In this case it's existing causeless. That's what we say if we say "god created everything out of nothing". Take energy as an example. We are not able to create or to destroy energy. The creation of all energy was in the second zero. Since energy, time, space and perhaps entropie are existing we can speak about causes - "before" it made no sense to do so. Is the string theory using a causal structure?

http://youtu.be/yE1OQAoSWAU

 

truth is rotten to a liar

no need to guess; you apparently dont know the string theory

 

The question is whether it actually is a valid philosophical argument. As someone who apprently supports the argument, you should be or wish to be, an expert in its weaknesses.