God did not create the Universe

[painted wolf]

This is coming from someone that says she believes in God but is siding with the one who doesn't.

I'm not siding with them about the existence of God now am I? :sarcastic

You are still cute you know... Oh noes, I agree with someone on one point... therefore I must agree with them about everything!

It would be pretty silly of me to disagree with everything they say just because they don't believe in God. Or agree with everything someone else says just because they have the same faith as me.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

Some scientists think that the scientific method will uncover any secret..that is not true..that is an article of faith.

I've yet to meet such a scientist... the universe is simply to large to learn everything.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

And yet you're all so certain that God cannot possibly exist, based on your subjective experience. Even with all human knowledge inside your skull, life is still a finite experience for each person. We can only perceive so much at any given time. Richard Dawkins himself is limited in this way. It is not possible for him to be omniscient. Not him, not even Christopher Hitchens (who is after all just a man).

You're cute... I'm a theist
wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

It would be pretty silly of me to disagree with everything they say just because they don't believe in God. Or agree with everything someone else says just because they have the same faith as me.

Very silly.

Loyalty is something people grow out of in my experience.

I am loyal to no one but an ideal and will treat other Gnostics and Luciferians just the same as my brother/sister Christians and Muslims if I happen to disagree with something they say.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

I've yet to meet such a scientist... the universe is simply to large to learn everything.

wa:do

I meet such scientists all the time...they think the scientific method is the only meaningful way to understand the universe..they are wrong.

I dont think the universe is too large as such...more that there is a limitation on the objectivity of our observational perspective.

 

[Skeptisch]

Sciences' job is to describe nature in the best way we can at present.

Well said. I am sure “The Grand Design” was written in that spirit.

One of the central tenets of the new Mlodinow/Hawking book is “Model-Dependent Realism”. This seems to be a philosophical approach to scientific inquiry based on how well the model does at describing the physical reality of the situation.

According to Mlodinow and Hawking a model is a good model if it:
1. Is elegant
2. Contains few arbitrary or adjustable element
3. Agrees with and explains all existing observations
4. Makes detailed predictions about future observations that can disprove or falsify the model if they are not born out.

We live in the “middle world” and our senses have evolved to recognise it. A good model of the physical reality we live in would probably be classical physics. Newtonian physics works quite well for us and we don’t have to worry about our clocks not being synchronised after a plane ride, or solid objects not being solid. However, near the speed light and in the quantum world things appear quite different! And if we lived in the quantum world we probably would have trouble understanding the "middle world".

"Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another."
— Carl Sagan (Cosmos)
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1823605017/

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

"Every one of us is, in the cosmic perspective, precious. If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion galaxies, you will not find another."

Indeed..all POV are valid.

 

[Skeptisch]

Indeed..all POV are valid.

That is not what the quote says !

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

That is not what the quote says !

I know..but it's what I am saying...

The quote illuminates how individual & subjective POV are, I expanded on that.

Valid isnt the same as accurate....

 

[painted wolf]

Very silly.

Loyalty is something people grow out of in my experience.

I am loyal to no one but an ideal and will treat other Gnostics and Luciferians just the same as my brother/sister Christians and Muslims if I happen to disagree with something they say.

Loyalty is not something to be given blindly. Nor is disagreeing with someone disloyal. It can be the ultimate in loyalty to point out someone is mistaken.

wa:do

 

[painted wolf]

I meet such scientists all the time...they think the scientific method is the only meaningful way to understand the universe..they are wrong.

I dont think the universe is too large as such...more that there is a limitation on the objectivity of our observational perspective.

That doesn't mean they think science will or can "know everything".

wa:do

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

Loyalty is not something to be given blindly. Nor is disagreeing with someone disloyal. It can be the ultimate in loyalty to point out someone is mistaken.

wa:do

In my world loyalty to the greater good is all that matters.

But loyalty means different things to different people to some like you it is about altruism (definately this time) to others about honour and blind loyalty to the bitter end.

 

[atanu]

As I have repeatedly tried to say this is a futile concern ultimately because of the inescapable nature of our relative subjectivity...it matters not how objective or accurate we are...our best theories on the nature of the universe can never be 100% empirical.

We are a part of the same universe we wish to observe...bound by its rules and limitations...we cannot observe it from a purely objectively distinct perspective.
Thus all scientific theories that describe the origin or ultimate nature of the universe are very likely to be flawed being subjective and observationally limited.

The scientific method is not enough and will always be flawed...when used to describe ideas like the universe's origins and other related metaphyscial aspects.

If what you are suggesting was possible, still it would not be truly empirical. The one outside the Universe, making the measurements would still be trying to measure his own perceptions only.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

That doesn't mean they think science will or can "know everything".

wa:do

No but that is a dream of many.

There are two paths to knowledge inner and outer maybe then we might have a better chance of shattering yet more abstract fallacies we take on as fact.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

If what you are suggesting was possible, still it would not be truly empirical. The one outside the Universe, making the measurements would still be trying to measure his own perceptions only.

Indeed.

One would still be a product of the mundane universe and might not be able to percieve or exist even in any fathomable way within the medium of reality that lies outside our own.

 

[atanu]

Indeed.

One would still be a product of the mundane universe and might not be able to percieve or exist even in any fathomable way within the medium of reality that lies outside our own.

It goes a step further. The observer (Seer) indeed exists in the Seen -- and thus the Seen is always subjective.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

It goes a step further. The observer (Seer) indeed exists in the Seen -- and thus the Seen is always subjective.

Well I thought thats what I had said earlier in other words...but yes basically that is the problem with the scientific method and metaphysical applications.

 

[atanu]

Well I thought thats what I had said earlier in other words...but yes basically that is the problem with the scientific method and metaphysical applications.

Hi

I agree with you. I am trying to point out that the problem is fundamental to the nature of knowing. There actually cannot be any objective knowledge, with external senses and mind. For example objective knowledge is usually validated by control observations/experiments. Suppose, one may say that the knowledge 'Sun exists' is an objective knowledge since one sees it and another control person xyz also sees it. But these two observations -- of a) Sun existing and of b) the control person validating-- are actually by one person alone.

Om

 

[kingsherald]

The statement that "God did not create the Universe" is very offensive to those who know and love God. And it is much more offensive to the Holy LORD God who created all things.

 

[Primordial Annihilator]

The statement that "God did not create the Universe" is very offensive to those who know and love God. And it is much more offensive to the Holy LORD God who created all things.

Thats the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.

Excuse me while I have a good laugh over that one.....

Incidently God is a big boy I think he can take a little criticism

Or perhaps people shouldn't be able to criticise God and form their own opinions?

Perhaps we should execute or otherwise silence these offensive unbelievers eh?


LOL