God and the Theory of Everything

[_Gadianton]

This matches Wisdom Traditions' teachings on universes that have been around for thousands of years.

no it doesn't.

Your wisdom teachings are so general and semantically abstract, that anything and everything science could ever discover will fit in with them.

Believe me, I've considered become a wisdom teacher myself. I could register on this forum under another name, and blow your mind away with the abstract, newage BS I'm capable of.

[_moksha]

The scientist of 1920 knew one world, the scientist of 2020 will know another. Don't kid yourself into thinking all the answers are known.

[_harmony]

The bad news for true believer religionists is that the closer we get to a Theory of Everything, the worse it looks for God and faith-based religion as the best way (or even a viable way) to describe how (or even why) the world and the universe work they do.

So you think God doesn't know physics? And didn't use physics to create the world and the universe(s)? You think only men (in the global sense) know physics?

[_sheryl]

This matches Wisdom Traditions' teachings on universes that have been around for thousands of years.

no it doesn't.

Your wisdom teachings are so general and semantically abstract, that anything and everything science could ever discover will fit in with them.

Believe me, I've considered become a wisdom teacher myself. I could register on this forum under another name, and blow your mind away with the abstract, newage BS I'm capable of.

Greetings Gadianton!

I am not aware that you know of my tradition's teachings. Are you truly familiar with the Sophian Tradition?

Blessings!
Sheryl

[Guest]

The bad news for true believer religionists is that the closer we get to a Theory of Everything, the worse it looks for God and faith-based religion as the best way (or even a viable way) to describe how (or even why) the world and the universe work they do.

So you think God doesn't know physics? And didn't use physics to create the world and the universe(s)? You think only men (in the global sense) know physics?

Harmony,

Hate to break it to you, but there is absolutely no evidence that Elohim is any more real than Zeus or Thor or any of the hundreds of other major an minor Gods that went before him and will come after him.

People with unfounded beliefs in imaginary Gods have done a lot of damage in the world wholly, or on significant part, because of such belief.

The more we learn about the way the universe works, the clearer it becomes that evidence for God is absent. As Stak pointed out on another thread, sometimes absence of evidence is evidence of absence. It would be hard to find a better example of this principle than the issue of God, and especially the Mormon God.

It is disturbing is that religious organizations such as the LDS Church apparently find nothing wrong with institutional lying in an attempt to persuade members to continue to believe its completely discredited foundational truth claims.

I find it particularly disturbing when religionists (and especially Mormons) dismiss evidence counter to their unfounded beliefs because they don't understand it or are afraid to think too hard about it. They claim instead, and in spite of evidence to the contrary, that God somehow uses natural laws to accomplish his work, when in fact they have only the dimmest understanding of what the natural laws at issue. Although true believers and apologists will deny it, any God who has characteristics ascribed to him according to Mormon belief would actually be violating natural laws on a continual basis.

I would be happy to provide examples.

[_DrW]

The scientist of 1920 knew one world, the scientist of 2020 will know another. Don't kid yourself into thinking all the answers are known.

Moksha,

Have you ever thought about the fact that gravity works exactly the same way now as it did when Isaac Newton first described it mathematically in the 17th Century? Do you ever think about the fact that the equations of Newtonian mechanics still work very well for perhaps 98% or more of the calculations done with respect to gravity, mechanical forces, ballistics, trajectories, and the like every day?

Do you really think that everyday mechanics will be different in 2020 than it was in 1920, when it has changed not at all for more than 300 years? What about practical optics? How will the basic laws of nature be different in 2020 than they were in 1920?

Granted, our understanding of the laws of nature will be more complete. And because of this we will be able to build faster, lighter, more powerful and/or less expensive cars, batteries, fuel cells, computers, mobile devices, aircraft, ships, satellites, etc.

However, the natural world and the laws of physics remain the same. What changes is our understanding of them. So, I claim that a scientist in 2020 will know exactly the same world that a scientist in 1920 knew. The average scientist in 2020 will know more about it (and will (hopefully) have more options to learn more still).

Nobody is saying that scientists know, or are close to knowing, "all the answers". However, there are some things that we do know about the world and about what will not be different in 2020.

Here is what will not have happened by 2020: Superluminal transfer of useful information will still not be possible (regardless of what Mormonism teaches regarding communication between God near Kolob and humankind here on Earth). Anthropomorphic beings with mass will not be able to hover unsupported in the air as Joseph Smith claimed. Nor will there be similar violations of other natural laws, unfounded beliefs of many faithful Mormons notwithstanding.

[_moksha]

Moksha,

Have you ever thought about the fact that gravity works exactly the same way now as it did when Isaac Newton first described it mathematically in the 17th Century? Do you ever think about the fact that the equations of Newtonian mechanics still work very well for perhaps 98% or more of the calculations done with respect to gravity, mechanical forces, ballistics, trajectories, and the like every day?

DrW,

Have you thought that the excretions of fungus work the same way on bacteria now as in 1920? Or that transistors would also have functioned the same, had they been invented? Best not to get too cozy in the thinking that all is known, especially with something as erroneously titled as the Theory of Everything. We have discoveries to make.

My own take on the interaction between science and religion is that science expands the boundaries of religion. By embracing science religion can still seek to answer the Why of the Universe.

[_DrW]

My own take on the interaction between science and religion is that science expands the boundaries of religion. By embracing science religion can still seek to answer the Why of the Universe.

If only religion would, or even could, embrace science. Religion continues to hold its unfounded beliefs and superstition above reason, logic and evidence based knowledge. Religion only tries to rationalize or incorporate that knowledge when it becomes painfully obvious that the relevant religious beliefs are just plain wrong (and sometimes dangerously wrong.)

Or, as do the leaders of the LDS Church, you simply say that the right answer does not matter because it is not important to one's salvation. (This is really an intelligent approach to determining truth, would you not agree?)

While science continues to seek answers, religion continues to claim that it already has them.

Here are some characteristic pronouncements from LDS religious leaders.

The mantle is far, far more important than the intellect. (BKP)

The Lord Will Never Permit the Living Prophet to Lead the Church Astray (HBL)

God works according to natural laws (with the clear implication that Mormons know exactly what they are). (JFS)

Some truths are not very useful. (BKP)

I could go on. Do these sound like people seeking answers from science or nature? Do these statements sould like they come from people who are earnest seekers of truth?

More importantly, do these kinds of statements give one any reason at all to thrust that the folks making them have any clue whatsoever about why were are here?

[_emilysmith]

The scientist of 1920 knew one world, the scientist of 2020 will know another. Don't kid yourself into thinking all the answers are known.

It is a good thing to bring up. What did we know was true back then that is still considered true today? Classical physics and even the beginning of quantum physics. Chemistry. The neuron and the fact that when the brain is altered physically, our mental states change.

Sure, there were a lot of wrong ideas, but consider the direction and consider what has proven, time and again, to still be true. Project backwards another hundred years, and you still see the trajectory in which scientific knowledge has been taking us.

There is no reason to think we will find something that is going to prove all of scientific discovery wrong. "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica" was written in the 1600's and holds up pretty well.

Our ability to trust the validity of any information is based on its ability to fit in with the rest of the puzzle, having mutually supporting evidence across a number of disciplines.

[_Aristotle Smith]

If only religion would, or even could, embrace science. Religion continues to hold its unfounded beliefs and superstition above reason, logic and evidence based knowledge. Religion only tries to rationalize or incorporate that knowledge when it becomes painfully obvious that the relevant religious beliefs are just plain wrong (and sometimes dangerously wrong.)

Still waiting for some reason to think this is true. But, it seems the only thing you plan on doing is to repeat the same mantra ad nauseum. When you do actually attempt to engage religion, the only religion you actually do engage is Mormonism, specifically of the LDS Church variety as below:

Or, as do the leaders of the LDS Church, you simply say that the right answer does not matter because it is not important to one's salvation. (This is really an intelligent approach to determining truth, would you not agree?)

So, a helpful hint if I may. Either engage religion in general, or stop referring to religion and take aim at the LDS church.