[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]horsepuss wrote:
so would time exist without poeple to measure it.
[/quote]
Well, yeah, but it wouldn’t mean much to us…[/quote]
I thought about this question after I posted it and thought to myself what a stupid fucking question.Its just like the question about wether or not a tree in the woods would make a noise if it fell and no one was around to hear it.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
I’m going to respond to the original question as to whether Noah’s Ark happened or not. This is an excellent question and unfortunately after reading through this thread most people believe that Noah’s Arc is fiction. This is very unfortunate because this is such an important event that Jesus himself mentions how people will be in the time of the end with how people were before the flood event. Matthew 24:37-39 states
“For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be. For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.”
So here Jesus is saying that during his presence, some Bibles translate presence as coming, that people would take no note of the signs in the Bible that point to the fact that we’re living in the last days. These people would just be living there life, not paying attention until it is too late.
I see that most people who posted in this thread at least believe in Jesus many have faith in Jesus. Since Jesus was in heaven during the flood event and he states that the flood event DID HAPPEN, those who have faith in Jesus SHOULD believe that this event did happen. Peter is another Bible writer that compares the flood event to the time of the end and Armagedon. 2 Peter 3:3-7 states:
"For YOU know this first, that in the last days there will come ridiculers with their ridicule, proceeding according to their own desires 4 and saying: �¢??Where is this promised presence of his? Why, from the day our forefathers fell asleep in death, all things are continuing exactly as from creation�¢??s beginning.�¢??
5 For, according to their wish, this fact escapes their notice, that there were heavens from of old and an earth standing compactly out of water and in the midst of water by the word of God; 6 and by those [means] the world of that time suffered destruction when it was deluged with water. 7 But by the same word the heavens and the earth that are now are stored up for fire and are being reserved to the day of judgment and of destruction of the ungodly men.
8 However, let this one fact not be escaping YOUR notice, beloved ones, that one day is with Jehovah as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day."
Again, Peter links Armageddon and the last days to the Flood event where most of the people on the earth at that time lost their lives due to the flood event. So according to the Bible the Flood event in Genesis is true and God used it to destroy ungodly people. Everyone knows about Armageddon, both Jesus and Peter link the flood event to a future event where God is going to remove people he deems as wicked and just like the survivors in the Arc who he deemed as righteous, he will preserve those who he deems as righteous alive.
2 Timothy 3:16 and 17 states:
All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.
So according to these verses the WHOLE BIBLE is inspired by God not just part of it which of course includes the Flood event.
Funny thing is historians and scientist have always and will continue to discredit the Bible when they can’t explain things in it. For example, I was watching the History Channel yesterday about great ancient battles and that particular episode was about the Israelites led by Joshua and the battle of Jericho. To make a long story short the Bible states that the wall surrounding Jericho would crumble and fall after 6 days enabling the Israelites to enter into the city. But since the historians being interviewed could not explain how the walls could literally fall they said that the walls falling must have simply meant that the city would be overthrown and the walls figurativly fell.
First Corinthians 3:19 and 20 explains this reasoning perfectly when it states:
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, �¢??He catches the wise in their own craftiness�¢??;[a] 20 and again, �¢??The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.�¢??
[/quote]
Very good post and good for you for taking the time to write it. Naturally you’ll be ridiculed for the truth and you won’t change one single mind. But that’s all part of being on a message board I suppose.
[/quote]
So, using a reference (the Bible) that is subject to the debate as source material to prove your position is sound? How is this a very good post?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[ String theory has been shown to be totally bunk, I hope everyone got the memo.
[/quote]
Can you please provide a reference to said memo?
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[ String theory has been shown to be totally bunk, I hope everyone got the memo.
[/quote]
Can you please provide a reference to said memo?[/quote]
Do a google search. You’ll find a lot. But basically string theory was an all-encompassing theoretical theory, that is elegant and sounds great, but doesn’t match up with the world at all.
It was a “Wouldn’t it be great if the world worked this way theory” that bridged quantum mechanics with general relativity, but actually did neither except in theoretical physics land. There is zero experimental evidence to back it up, unlike GR and QM theories, which both have experimental data to back them up (someone recently posted a good link the off topic section).
The fact that there is still string theory interest is funny, it’s like people still being interested in phlogiston. I guess it’s interesting, but doesn’t describe the world we live in.
You have to remember that there will be a period in which people will insist we continue to give String Theory cred. That’s because at this point there are people who have PhDs in it, and have spent the last twenty years working on it. But String Theory will never find its way into a physics textbook, and will be forever relegated to the “History of” section.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[ String theory has been shown to be totally bunk, I hope everyone got the memo.
[/quote]
Can you please provide a reference to said memo?[/quote]
Do a google search. You’ll find a lot. But basically string theory was an all-encompassing theoretical theory, that is elegant and sounds great, but doesn’t match up with the world at all.
It was a “Wouldn’t it be great if the world worked this way theory” that bridged quantum mechanics with general relativity, but actually did neither except in theoretical physics land. There is zero experimental evidence to back it up, unlike GR and QM theories, which both have experimental data to back them up (someone recently posted a good link the off topic section).
The fact that there is still string theory interest is funny, it’s like people still being interested in phlogiston. I guess it’s interesting, but doesn’t describe the world we live in.
You have to remember that there will be a period in which people will insist we continue to give String Theory cred. That’s because at this point there are people who have PhDs in it, and have spent the last twenty years working on it. But String Theory will never find its way into a physics textbook, and will be forever relegated to the “History of” section.[/quote]
You thought string theory is elegant? I think it is very rough and excessively complicated which is why I think it’s going to found to be wrong, but I have yet to see it completely refuted. It’s biggest problem is that it is an incomplete theory and it is basically one equation away from being refuted, but I haven’t heard that it has occurred from reputable academics. The fact it’s not match the function of the universe is not really relevant. Neither theory General Relativity not quantum mechanics at their extremes are really weird, but yet still guided by principals. String theory, is still very much alive, but at some point it’s going to fall apart. It’s just to complicated and has to many moving parts to marry a very simplistic quantum/ relativity theories. So many in fact that they had to spread it across 11 dimensions…
My personal on why theoretical physicists are not going to succeed at a theory of everything is precisely because of their atheistic biases. What I do not mean is that they should accept a “God did it” scenario. But I see them automatically dismiss anything that could remotely infer a what they would call a supernatural force. I don’t see it super natural, but completely natural.
Bare with me, I am almost done.
Anyhow, let’s take the “particles in vacuum problem” otherwise known as “Null Theory”. Where in a vaccum particles appear to come from nowhere. Well, I pretty sure they were already there and you had to remove all other matter in order to see them. They are so deperate to prove randomness in the universe they forget their own rules. First, a vacuum isn’t a nothing, it occupies space and the particles generate their â??dark energy’ in time. Those are to rules, guiding principles to the particles’ behaviour. ← That’s not nothing, but two something’s. I asked a theoretical physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss about that very problem; he admitted no, there is always something there. You can see this on page 39 of this thread:
So there is this big song and dance about “Null Theory” except there is one major problem, it’s not null. The thing is that the extremes of science come dangerously close to blurring the lines between physics and metaphysics, but you will never here a scientist admit this. <-And this is where an atheistic bias is hurtful. There’s more going on with matter that the matter itself and the space it occupies. For instance, forget about matter itself, where does it’s behavior come from. Where does the laws of physics come from, or the yet undiscovered laws of quantum physics, or the laws of general relativity? ← Agian, my opinion based on what I have seen.
Here’s the deal, we discovered these laws, we did not invent them they already existed. They came from somewhere else. From where, how and why?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[ String theory has been shown to be totally bunk, I hope everyone got the memo.
[/quote]
Can you please provide a reference to said memo?[/quote]
Do a google search. You’ll find a lot. But basically string theory was an all-encompassing theoretical theory, that is elegant and sounds great, but doesn’t match up with the world at all.
It was a “Wouldn’t it be great if the world worked this way theory” that bridged quantum mechanics with general relativity, but actually did neither except in theoretical physics land. There is zero experimental evidence to back it up, unlike GR and QM theories, which both have experimental data to back them up (someone recently posted a good link the off topic section).
The fact that there is still string theory interest is funny, it’s like people still being interested in phlogiston. I guess it’s interesting, but doesn’t describe the world we live in.
You have to remember that there will be a period in which people will insist we continue to give String Theory cred. That’s because at this point there are people who have PhDs in it, and have spent the last twenty years working on it. But String Theory will never find its way into a physics textbook, and will be forever relegated to the “History of” section.[/quote]
Do a google search? LOL. Okay, that’s your reference? It sounds like you formed an OPINION. Far as I know, string theory is still seriously studied. I know what it is. I have picked up a book or two. I have never read anything that suggested it is “dead” or hit a dead end. And there is a reason why there is zero experimental evidence. I’m curious; where did you earn your physics degree?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[ String theory has been shown to be totally bunk, I hope everyone got the memo.
[/quote]
Can you please provide a reference to said memo?[/quote]
Do a google search. You’ll find a lot. But basically string theory was an all-encompassing theoretical theory, that is elegant and sounds great, but doesn’t match up with the world at all.
It was a “Wouldn’t it be great if the world worked this way theory” that bridged quantum mechanics with general relativity, but actually did neither except in theoretical physics land. There is zero experimental evidence to back it up, unlike GR and QM theories, which both have experimental data to back them up (someone recently posted a good link the off topic section).
The fact that there is still string theory interest is funny, it’s like people still being interested in phlogiston. I guess it’s interesting, but doesn’t describe the world we live in.
You have to remember that there will be a period in which people will insist we continue to give String Theory cred. That’s because at this point there are people who have PhDs in it, and have spent the last twenty years working on it. But String Theory will never find its way into a physics textbook, and will be forever relegated to the “History of” section.[/quote]
You thought string theory is elegant? I think it is very rough and excessively complicated which is why I think it’s going to found to be wrong, but I have yet to see it completely refuted. It’s biggest problem is that it is an incomplete theory and it is basically one equation away from being refuted, but I haven’t heard that it has occurred from reputable academics. The fact it’s not match the function of the universe is not really relevant. Neither theory General Relativity not quantum mechanics at their extremes are really weird, but yet still guided by principals. String theory, is still very much alive, but at some point it’s going to fall apart. It’s just to complicated and has to many moving parts to marry a very simplistic quantum/ relativity theories. So many in fact that they had to spread it across 11 dimensions…
My personal on why theoretical physicists are not going to succeed at a theory of everything is precisely because of their atheistic biases. What I do not mean is that they should accept a “God did it” scenario. But I see them automatically dismiss anything that could remotely infer a what they would call a supernatural force. I don’t see it super natural, but completely natural.
Bare with me, I am almost done.
Anyhow, let’s take the “particles in vacuum problem” otherwise known as “Null Theory”. Where in a vaccum particles appear to come from nowhere. Well, I pretty sure they were already there and you had to remove all other matter in order to see them. They are so deperate to prove randomness in the universe they forget their own rules. First, a vacuum isn’t a nothing, it occupies space and the particles generate their â??dark energy’ in time. Those are to rules, guiding principles to the particles’ behaviour. ← That’s not nothing, but two something’s. I asked a theoretical physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss about that very problem; he admitted no, there is always something there. You can see this on page 39 of this thread:
So there is this big song and dance about “Null Theory” except there is one major problem, it’s not null. The thing is that the extremes of science come dangerously close to blurring the lines between physics and metaphysics, but you will never here a scientist admit this. <-And this is where an atheistic bias is hurtful. There’s more going on with matter that the matter itself and the space it occupies. For instance, forget about matter itself, where does it’s behavior come from. Where does the laws of physics come from, or the yet undiscovered laws of quantum physics, or the laws of general relativity? ← Agian, my opinion based on what I have seen.
Here’s the deal, we discovered these laws, we did not invent them they already existed. They came from somewhere else. From where, how and why?
[/quote]
I’ve read some theoretical physics books and my understanding is that quite a few believe in God - I’ve perceived no “atheistic bias” as you state. Being able to explain the “theory of everything” does not automatically dismiss the notion of a first cause or God. Our present inability to unite the various theories and discover yet still smaller particles or even strings (if they exist) will probably continue for a long time due to technological limitations though. I love these discussions but they are terribly annoying when the theories and concepts get butchered by mere laymen like ourselves - unless of course one of you has earned a recent physics degree and is currently engaged in research - in which case you have a remarkable amount of free time on your hands to discuss it on T-Nation with the unwashed 
LOL
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Do a google search? LOL. Okay, that’s your reference? It sounds like you formed an OPINION. Far as I know, string theory is still seriously studied. I know what it is. I have picked up a book or two. I have never read anything that suggested it is “dead” or hit a dead end. And there is a reason why there is zero experimental evidence. I’m curious; where did you earn your physics degree?
[/quote]
It’s just so broadly excepted by everyone in the field now, I don’t think a couple of references would do it justice. No doubt, there are those still trying to “save it”, just like I’m sure there was a lot of heartbreak by the alchemists when if was shown that you couldn’t turn lead into gold.
I don’t want this to turn into an ad hominem argument so I’m a little leery about giving you “credentials” as you’re just as likely as not to either attack them or dismiss them since you seem to already have your mind made up.
The way science works, is you need to prove something, or at least show evidence for it, to have your idea taken seriously. Can you present a single shred of evidence for string theory? Again, history has shown us a number of elegant, complete, and ultimately unsuccessful “systems”.
How did we get here from Noah’s Ark?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
…How did we get here from Noah’s Arch?[/quote]
Lemme help you, the OP and other spelling bee losers. It’s “ark.”[/quote]
Last time I look to an OP for spelling direction.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Do a google search? LOL. Okay, that’s your reference? It sounds like you formed an OPINION. Far as I know, string theory is still seriously studied. I know what it is. I have picked up a book or two. I have never read anything that suggested it is “dead” or hit a dead end. And there is a reason why there is zero experimental evidence. I’m curious; where did you earn your physics degree?
[/quote]
It’s just so broadly excepted by everyone in the field now, I don’t think a couple of references would do it justice. No doubt, there are those still trying to “save it”, just like I’m sure there was a lot of heartbreak by the alchemists when if was shown that you couldn’t turn lead into gold.
I don’t want this to turn into an ad hominem argument so I’m a little leery about giving you “credentials” as you’re just as likely as not to either attack them or dismiss them since you seem to already have your mind made up.
The way science works, is you need to prove something, or at least show evidence for it, to have your idea taken seriously. Can you present a single shred of evidence for string theory? Again, history has shown us a number of elegant, complete, and ultimately unsuccessful “systems”.
How did we get here from Noah’s Ark?[/quote]
I don’t mean to be disrespectful or dismissive. But seriously, when you arrogantly dismiss the serious work by the brightest men on the planet, I think it’s fair you get called on it. And furthermore, the nature of this problem is such that we may never be able to “prove” it and they readily admit that. Our technology may never catch up with the theoretical math. But there may be other ways to prove it by inference. I remember reading we’d need a collider about the size of the solar system to create the energies necessary to find strings and such. That just isn’t going to happen. And the scientist pursuing this understand that. And they also understand that they may never prove the theory by conventional means of “proof” as you elude to. That much has not changed and I am unaware of anything in recent years that was a set back for string theory. The problems you mention have been there all along. So again, I challenge you, reference a source that illustrates such a set back? And by the way, the fact that point physics cannot be reconciled with the other theories is evidence enough for me that point physics may be more fallible than string theory.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
These type threads amuse me in that I see these tiny, frail human creatures obsessed with their self importance and self described vast intellects figuratively shaking their little fists at the heavens screaming, “YOU’RE NOT THERE! YOU’RE NOT THERE! If you were you would’ve revealed yourself better than You claim You have!”
When the Creator, sitting outside of space, energy/matter and time, looks down and sees his created ones denying His existence, ridiculing His plan, and excoriating others who don’t deny Him, I wonder…[/quote]
I’m not sure people are denying God per se. I think most people’s problem, mine included, is religion. Surely the God you describe as being outside space, energy, matter, time, etc., is not a jealous petty God as described in various relgious texts. When I read those texts, I see man, not God. Those traits are hallmarks of (in)humanity. And those traits and outright hypocracies are impossible to ignore by many of us. My feeling is that God does not require an emissary, a spokesperson or an author. I for one don’t deny “God”, in the sense of a first cause, a prime mover, an architect, a spark of light in all of us - I’m just a firm skeptic of the God described by people not far removed from living in caves. But I do respect your right to believe and follow whatever religion you desire as it must bring you comfort but I am also mindful of the discrimination, war and destruction that has been caused by it.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[ String theory has been shown to be totally bunk, I hope everyone got the memo.
[/quote]
Can you please provide a reference to said memo?[/quote]
Do a google search. You’ll find a lot. But basically string theory was an all-encompassing theoretical theory, that is elegant and sounds great, but doesn’t match up with the world at all.
It was a “Wouldn’t it be great if the world worked this way theory” that bridged quantum mechanics with general relativity, but actually did neither except in theoretical physics land. There is zero experimental evidence to back it up, unlike GR and QM theories, which both have experimental data to back them up (someone recently posted a good link the off topic section).
The fact that there is still string theory interest is funny, it’s like people still being interested in phlogiston. I guess it’s interesting, but doesn’t describe the world we live in.
You have to remember that there will be a period in which people will insist we continue to give String Theory cred. That’s because at this point there are people who have PhDs in it, and have spent the last twenty years working on it. But String Theory will never find its way into a physics textbook, and will be forever relegated to the “History of” section.[/quote]
You thought string theory is elegant? I think it is very rough and excessively complicated which is why I think it’s going to found to be wrong, but I have yet to see it completely refuted. It’s biggest problem is that it is an incomplete theory and it is basically one equation away from being refuted, but I haven’t heard that it has occurred from reputable academics. The fact it’s not match the function of the universe is not really relevant. Neither theory General Relativity not quantum mechanics at their extremes are really weird, but yet still guided by principals. String theory, is still very much alive, but at some point it’s going to fall apart. It’s just to complicated and has to many moving parts to marry a very simplistic quantum/ relativity theories. So many in fact that they had to spread it across 11 dimensions…
My personal on why theoretical physicists are not going to succeed at a theory of everything is precisely because of their atheistic biases. What I do not mean is that they should accept a “God did it” scenario. But I see them automatically dismiss anything that could remotely infer a what they would call a supernatural force. I don’t see it super natural, but completely natural.
Bare with me, I am almost done.
Anyhow, let’s take the “particles in vacuum problem” otherwise known as “Null Theory”. Where in a vaccum particles appear to come from nowhere. Well, I pretty sure they were already there and you had to remove all other matter in order to see them. They are so deperate to prove randomness in the universe they forget their own rules. First, a vacuum isn’t a nothing, it occupies space and the particles generate their Ã?¢??dark energy’ in time. Those are to rules, guiding principles to the particles’ behaviour. ← That’s not nothing, but two something’s. I asked a theoretical physicist Dr. Lawrence Krauss about that very problem; he admitted no, there is always something there. You can see this on page 39 of this thread:
So there is this big song and dance about “Null Theory” except there is one major problem, it’s not null. The thing is that the extremes of science come dangerously close to blurring the lines between physics and metaphysics, but you will never here a scientist admit this. <-And this is where an atheistic bias is hurtful. There’s more going on with matter that the matter itself and the space it occupies. For instance, forget about matter itself, where does it’s behavior come from. Where does the laws of physics come from, or the yet undiscovered laws of quantum physics, or the laws of general relativity? ← Agian, my opinion based on what I have seen.
Here’s the deal, we discovered these laws, we did not invent them they already existed. They came from somewhere else. From where, how and why?
[/quote]
I’ve read some theoretical physics books and my understanding is that quite a few believe in God - I’ve perceived no “atheistic bias” as you state. Being able to explain the “theory of everything” does not automatically dismiss the notion of a first cause or God. Our present inability to unite the various theories and discover yet still smaller particles or even strings (if they exist) will probably continue for a long time due to technological limitations though. I love these discussions but they are terribly annoying when the theories and concepts get butchered by mere laymen like ourselves - unless of course one of you has earned a recent physics degree and is currently engaged in research - in which case you have a remarkable amount of free time on your hands to discuss it on T-Nation with the unwashed LOL[/quote]
I haven’t run across any theists in the theoretical physicist that are theist, though I am sure some exist. It seems that many of them go into it as a means to disprove the existence of God. As if haunted by the question itself.
I agree searching for a unifying theory isn’t necessarily a mission to disprove the first cause, but I just see obvious things that their missing when they report things like null theory or interference patterns. Rather than report the facts they use incomplete examples as proof of randomness and it’s not.
I don’t think we’ve butchered these theories at least I have strove to report them as they are. If I got something wrong, please correct me. I don’t need a Phd to understand the concepts, the math behind it, yes, but not the concepts. I am interested in philosophy, what I need to do my job is the bottom line from the sciences. Those are my tools. I need to understand the concepts to make sure the conclusions aren’t made up, but I don’t necessarily need the intricacies. However, if I do become a millionaire for some reason I would love to study these disciplines in far greater detail…I’d like to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher in the 1000 lb club.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Do a google search? LOL. Okay, that’s your reference? It sounds like you formed an OPINION. Far as I know, string theory is still seriously studied. I know what it is. I have picked up a book or two. I have never read anything that suggested it is “dead” or hit a dead end. And there is a reason why there is zero experimental evidence. I’m curious; where did you earn your physics degree?
[/quote]
It’s just so broadly excepted by everyone in the field now, I don’t think a couple of references would do it justice. No doubt, there are those still trying to “save it”, just like I’m sure there was a lot of heartbreak by the alchemists when if was shown that you couldn’t turn lead into gold.
I don’t want this to turn into an ad hominem argument so I’m a little leery about giving you “credentials” as you’re just as likely as not to either attack them or dismiss them since you seem to already have your mind made up.
The way science works, is you need to prove something, or at least show evidence for it, to have your idea taken seriously. Can you present a single shred of evidence for string theory? Again, history has shown us a number of elegant, complete, and ultimately unsuccessful “systems”.
How did we get here from Noah’s Ark?[/quote]
Atheists jumped in mocked us and said there is no God. These things always go down this path when that is introduced.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Do a google search? LOL. Okay, that’s your reference? It sounds like you formed an OPINION. Far as I know, string theory is still seriously studied. I know what it is. I have picked up a book or two. I have never read anything that suggested it is “dead” or hit a dead end. And there is a reason why there is zero experimental evidence. I’m curious; where did you earn your physics degree?
[/quote]
It’s just so broadly excepted by everyone in the field now, I don’t think a couple of references would do it justice. No doubt, there are those still trying to “save it”, just like I’m sure there was a lot of heartbreak by the alchemists when if was shown that you couldn’t turn lead into gold.
I don’t want this to turn into an ad hominem argument so I’m a little leery about giving you “credentials” as you’re just as likely as not to either attack them or dismiss them since you seem to already have your mind made up.
The way science works, is you need to prove something, or at least show evidence for it, to have your idea taken seriously. Can you present a single shred of evidence for string theory? Again, history has shown us a number of elegant, complete, and ultimately unsuccessful “systems”.
How did we get here from Noah’s Ark?[/quote]
Atheists jumped in mocked us and said there is no God. These things always go down this path when that is introduced.[/quote]
Sadly, that’s the case with “jerk Atheists”.
[quote]pat wrote:
I haven’t run across any theists in the theoretical physicist that are theist, though I am sure some exist. It seems that many of them go into it as a means to disprove the existence of God. As if haunted by the question itself.
I agree searching for a unifying theory isn’t necessarily a mission to disprove the first cause, but I just see obvious things that their missing when they report things like null theory or interference patterns. Rather than report the facts they use incomplete examples as proof of randomness and it’s not.
I don’t think we’ve butchered these theories at least I have strove to report them as they are. If I got something wrong, please correct me. I don’t need a Phd to understand the concepts, the math behind it, yes, but not the concepts. I am interested in philosophy, what I need to do my job is the bottom line from the sciences. Those are my tools. I need to understand the concepts to make sure the conclusions aren’t made up, but I don’t necessarily need the intricacies. However, if I do become a millionaire for some reason I would love to study these disciplines in far greater detail…I’d like to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher in the 1000 lb club. [/quote]
I think you’re seeing what you want to see or, you are paying attention to those that attempt to highjack the science with their agenda. I have seen many a physicist acknowledge the “order” to things. Even considering “randomness”, the universe appears to follow certain laws. Life as we know it exists within a very narrow range of variables. And there are many scientists that acknowledge this. You might even label their quest an attempt to understand God as much as anything.
And by the way, we are talking the brightest people on the planet. Period. People who reach a relatively early peak (not many are part of discoveries in their later years). It’s not a field of fame or riches. I’m sure they went into their field with a bit more than just a desire to disprove God. Sounds like you have an agenda.
If we ever do unravel the mysteries of how it all began, it does not disprove the notion of “God”. Would you suggest that the first amateur Vulcanist sought to unravel the mysteries of the Volacano with the sole purpose of diproving God?
Finally, “you” see “obvious” things the brightest people in the world are “missing”. I salute you sir. You are either among them and superior, or delusional. No disprespect or flame - just an observation.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Do a google search? LOL. Okay, that’s your reference? It sounds like you formed an OPINION. Far as I know, string theory is still seriously studied. I know what it is. I have picked up a book or two. I have never read anything that suggested it is “dead” or hit a dead end. And there is a reason why there is zero experimental evidence. I’m curious; where did you earn your physics degree?
[/quote]
It’s just so broadly excepted by everyone in the field now, I don’t think a couple of references would do it justice. No doubt, there are those still trying to “save it”, just like I’m sure there was a lot of heartbreak by the alchemists when if was shown that you couldn’t turn lead into gold.
I don’t want this to turn into an ad hominem argument so I’m a little leery about giving you “credentials” as you’re just as likely as not to either attack them or dismiss them since you seem to already have your mind made up.
The way science works, is you need to prove something, or at least show evidence for it, to have your idea taken seriously. Can you present a single shred of evidence for string theory? Again, history has shown us a number of elegant, complete, and ultimately unsuccessful “systems”.
How did we get here from Noah’s Ark?[/quote]
Atheists jumped in mocked us and said there is no God. These things always go down this path when that is introduced.[/quote]
I think they mocked the Bible - or more accurately, some group’s interpretation of the Bible. Now I’m sure you have an agenda.
[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I haven’t run across any theists in the theoretical physicist that are theist, though I am sure some exist. It seems that many of them go into it as a means to disprove the existence of God. As if haunted by the question itself.
I agree searching for a unifying theory isn’t necessarily a mission to disprove the first cause, but I just see obvious things that their missing when they report things like null theory or interference patterns. Rather than report the facts they use incomplete examples as proof of randomness and it’s not.
I don’t think we’ve butchered these theories at least I have strove to report them as they are. If I got something wrong, please correct me. I don’t need a Phd to understand the concepts, the math behind it, yes, but not the concepts. I am interested in philosophy, what I need to do my job is the bottom line from the sciences. Those are my tools. I need to understand the concepts to make sure the conclusions aren’t made up, but I don’t necessarily need the intricacies. However, if I do become a millionaire for some reason I would love to study these disciplines in far greater detail…I’d like to be the only theoretical physicist and philosopher in the 1000 lb club. [/quote]
I think you’re seeing what you want to see or, you are paying attention to those that attempt to highjack the science with their agenda. I have seen many a physicist acknowledge the “order” to things. Even considering “randomness”, the universe appears to follow certain laws. Life as we know it exists within a very narrow range of variables. And there are many scientists that acknowledge this. You might even label their quest an attempt to understand God as much as anything.
And by the way, we are talking the brightest people on the planet. Period. People who reach a relatively early peak (not many are part of discoveries in their later years). It’s not a field of fame or riches. I’m sure they went into their field with a bit more than just a desire to disprove God. Sounds like you have an agenda.
If we ever do unravel the mysteries of how it all began, it does not disprove the notion of “God”. Would you suggest that the first amateur Vulcanist sought to unravel the mysteries of the Volacano with the sole purpose of diproving God?
Finally, “you” see “obvious” things the brightest people in the world are “missing”. I salute you sir. You are either among them and superior, or delusional. No disprespect or flame - just an observation.[/quote]
What does rank have to do with anything? If someone is of higher stature and misses an obvious point, does their stature make that point actually not exist? I am neither better or worse, smarter or dumber. I take what I observe and report on it, if somebody brilliant misses a point, is it still not a point?
Scientists such as Hawking or Kruass who specifically say that they are trying to put forth a view of the universe “…where we don’t need God”. That’s pretty direct agenda.
I am not comparing myself to anyone, it’s not important to do so. They are atheists trying to disprove God with their science. I, as a theist have to prove them wrong. I am not afraid to take on anybody on the topic, brilliant or not.
I am just a regular dude, who is interested in answers to the big questions. I have a passion for philosophy. My arguments are not my own, they are all borrowed from many places.