Do you believe in God?

Post Reply New Topic

Again, energy of the required accelerator would require the length of a galaxy. Moreover, when CERN tested for supersymmetry (even though it is expected to be within the capability of CERN) they did not find any.

I'm not even talking about string theory. But how do you know that new technology won't be up to the task? I'm sure CERN seemed impossible to scientists of the 60's.

What about a Temporary Truce between you two?
here's a suggestion:
multiverse theory is science when it is strong enough to make a christian say “damn.”

I must say multiverse theory is dangerously plausible
no science yet
maybe tomorrow
the future is always only one day ahead

Here's my "drlaugh flow of thoughs imitation of the day" (but in shadow of the master):

Multiverse. . .? No multiverse?
But does it make a difference if there is a multiverse?
Once the world was flat,
once we only knew our solar system
now we know more
but do we now know the truth?
Still our view is widening
what does this mean?
Is the World growing by every moment
or is it the Moment that is growing
Laying the Foundation
for something that we still cannot speak of yet
(foundation for love,
radiation of the Sun,
once they formulated it like this:
Jesus is His Son)
And does Multiverse make God obsolete?
In a the world that existed of dark forests
people believed in a God that hides in dark forests
in a world that exists of clouds of sub-atomic particles
people believe in a God that hides in a cloud of sub-atomic particles
It's one question if there's a multiverse
another one: if you believe in secrets

(if you don't like it, blame my avatar )

I can say one thing, it isn't a supernatural idea. Which automatically makes it more plausible than God.

"Logic is only the beginning of wisdom not the end." L. N.

"Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." — MS & SH

Have you experienced the implausible in your life?
I have.

Praising God


Shalom
Zvi.

How so?

Do believe in the possibility of new data?

Does new data change anything?

Are any of you published in your fields of science.

Have any of you read
A. The 66 books of the Bible
B. Any other religious text

That depends on what you mean by "new data"...
Lets just say that i do though


Not by definition, but it can


Irrelevant, one can be an expert without being published, you just need to know most of the relevant information in your field, and be able to admit when something is outside of it.


Did you?
Still, irrelevant, one example of a claim made by any book of the bible that is shown ("proven") incorrect is enough to disallow the entire bible to stand as evidence in its own right, as not all of it is correct, there is one mistake, so there can be any number more

Why not the...

B. 5 books of the Bible?
C. 24 books of the Bible?
D. 73 books of the Bible?
E. 78 books of the Bible?
F. 81 books of the Bible?

?

Yes.

We know universes can exist, we don't know that God exists.

Paul Davies easily surmises my thoughts on such thinking: "For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith."

Don't agree. The Bible can be read in many ways, maybe a thousand, but to keep it simple: an outer or literal meaning and an inner or symbolic meaning.
I don't like to watch how some Christian denominations only teach the letter of the literal meaning of the words and then get into trouble with science.

Example of literal approach: in my protestant country there was a church split around 1930 over the question whether the snake in paradise was a real snake . . .

Example of symbolic approach (tried it in an earlier post): . . man eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and being cast away by God. . it could be not a tree but a symbol for
- an element of incomprehension on the part of mankind
- people too easily believing something when it sounds credible, but just as easily abandoning it
- people too easily granting their loyalty to someone, then just as easily abandoning it,
- too easily substituting it by something or someone else,
- then shunning the person to whom loyalty was first granted
- blaming the other
- regret, and longing to be redeemed by God, someone who has all truths in his hand

Piece of unique classic spiritual symbolism
like it better than 66 books of atheism (though Nietzsche's also great)

I have zero faith in the multiverse idea. It's just one possibility. One with just as much evidence as the fine-tuning argument. Which evidently you do have faith in.

Pathetic. There is far more evidence for fine tuning of our universe then there are for an infinite ensemble of other universes.

Some parameters seem unlikely to have occurred that way if they are unrelated to all the other ones. That is far from evidence that a being knowingly constructed it that way.