Arkum Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Well, i'm Muslim. And i think taht science and religion can mix. The way it says the earth was made in the Koran very much resembles the big bang theory. Islam supports the notion of furthering science to know more aobut the world around you, etc. The second issue im going to talk about is God. C'jais, you dont believe in God, right? im assuming that you dont, corrrect me if im wrong. well, does that make you an immoral person? well ,no. I tihnk peopel beleive in God through pure faith. i do, i think that scientific proof would be great, but since there isnt any, i ahve to just have faith that there is one. taht's all i have about taht. Next, organized religion. There are COUNTLESS religions out there. is there a right one? well, not really. Islam believes that christians, jews, and muslims are right in their own way. so, just because one doesn't follow a certain religion, it doesn't mean they're going to end up in hell. I'm just trying to say that sometimes there isn't a true explanation for religion, you just have to have faith. Also, you dont have to believe a certain religion or denomination to go to heaven eitehr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Kurgan, C'jais you both are absolutely right. I take many things for granted. Furthermore it took me months of reading to structure all "yes" and "no" about these theories. And I can not convince you till you make some step towards it yourselves. I read Hawking, Deutch, Tipler(a bit), Mendel, Popper, Darwin, Penrose, Turing and others. Among them (although they're all greatest of greatest) I found David Deutch's view to be the most convincing as he never invented anything, he took the best we've got and astablished all-unifying relationship between it which from my point of view can not be ignored. It's like we had everything scattered to pieces till this moment shading the picture allowing no clear view. Now I think we have a first glimpse of it. It's not full it's just a beginning. But it gives something clear that we can use to recreate the full image. And it astonishes me with its fullness. But I can not give you all "yes" and "no", just can try to direct you there. It's a great opportunity. I'm not a scientist and I'll never be. All I'm good for is to observe and understand what others accomplished. These are my limits. Those others are genius people... Funny thing I'd like to talk about it... There genius people. Ones that can find a way from A to C without knowing B. It's a genetic mutation. It's a known fact that many genius people had some pathologies from birth (like Hawking for example... bless him, no offense). They all have great mind capacity sometimes they got mad about or put themselves into extreme (it's their gift and their curse I think) There also is another type of geniusity. One's who make it with great study and practice. They get these astounding results because of their genius industry. The only chance for me to be able to understand and explain it to you is to become the same level they are either of genetic geniusity (which I know I have not) or by genius hard-working. In the end it all depends on me. And I know that I'm lazy donut and it's always exponencially hard. You get to some level with some affort, you'll get to higher level with 10 times an affort, to get to even higher level you need 100 times an affort. You can count further on. And geneticly-genius you can become in 20 while industry-genius you'll become in 60. I have a glimpse of what I speak about. I practice aikido which is a martial art of great efficiency and wisdom(I guess). I'm a shodan (have a black belt). I see many people there who lost their ability to practice efficiently which is possible only with your open-minded hard work or with talent (if both we get some human God like Aikido founder O'Sensei Morihei Ueshiba). I see some talents there. One aikidoka there understands any movement correctly intuitively which is a great gift assuming his height of 6 feet 2 inches (I have the same). Aikido gives much better efficiency with short people giving them natural movements because they stand better on the ground. Elephants have always problems there. I only gain success through hard work watching with some envy on these talents. There are other talents because they began practicing from their birth. It's like boxing, you're much better when you have school (intuitive culture of movement). It's not that important in any martial arts but it gives big benefits when you have it from the beginning. And what really pisses me off is when I see a talented person doing some stupid way in aikido (not understanding principles) or just too lazy to use his talents. In the end I'd like to postualte one thing: I see NO reason why ANY normal person can't understand fully this monstrous multiverse. It's only a matter of good explanation. That's it. P.S. David Deutch is quantum physicist. I started multiverse by chance reading his "Fabric of Reality" 1997. It's a classic everyone should know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 Now I'm not a physics major, but I did a little searching on a the net and now I know who this guy is you're talking about. He's the premier champion of this multiverse theory (a variation on the "many worlds" concept of space/time). However, the impression I got was that this was a controversial theory on the fringes of science (and not without its variant expressions). It'll be interesting to see if anything comes of it in the next few decades. I saw the book you mentioned on amazon. Here are a few misc sites I found talking about the subject: http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci332247,00.html http://www.public.iastate.edu/~bearoso/theories.html http://www.csicop.org/si/2001-09/fringe-watcher.html http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/31/1041196640478.html http://www.discover.com/nov_00/featlife.html Deutsch's own page: http://www.qubit.org/people/david/David.html Let's not forget that even geniuses can make mistakes. ; ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurgan Posted April 30, 2003 Share Posted April 30, 2003 In the end I'd like to postualte one thing: I see NO reason why ANY normal person can't understand fully this monstrous multiverse. It's only a matter of good explanation. That's it. I would contend that the universe is too vast and complex a system for any one human mind to comprehend at once, much less an infinitely large and complex multiverse. But that's just my feeling. ; ) As to the multiverse "theory" itself, one would have to understand the equations and science behind it in order to make sense of it. For laymen, all we can really do is hope that the scientific community is doing their research, and see how it turns out. Accepting this on philosophical terms is a whole 'nother story, which is what I think you're talking about (correct me if I'm wrong). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted May 1, 2003 Share Posted May 1, 2003 Thanks for the book references and links, Homuncul and Kurgan. I'll get around to reading them when I have the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted May 6, 2003 Share Posted May 6, 2003 Kurgan: As to the multiverse "theory" itself, one would have to understand the equations and science behind it in order to make sense of it. For laymen, all we can really do is hope that the scientific community is doing their research, and see how it turns out. Accepting this on philosophical terms is a whole 'nother story, which is what I think you're talking about (correct me if I'm wrong). The equations and science behind it is not the worst thing. On the contrary the equations are written with as much simplicity as possible even I understood without problems. The different problem is getting to their level of understanding and not get mixed up in something positive or instrumental or something. It's like a story about the inability of rabbit to outrun a turtle. So it's like running for horizon. This story contains logical error. In such a deep knowledge as quantum mechanics it's inevitable and hardly recognizable. As for the web stuff, you did a great job but most interesting of it is on Deutsch's page. P.S. And I'm really touched that I find people here who above all the unbreakability of their opinions find strength in their hearts to turn their world upside down if only for a moment and look at it from a different loop. That's an adequate approach which I'm really honored to see here. It gives me hope. To be open-minded from that point of view means a lot more than it takes commonly (for example: to break down the religion and establish scientific one or something like that), it means that upon all rationalism of science lies a pearl of faith (I'd say a faith in future knowledge) and those who keep this faith conditionally (scientists and we here) and those who keep it unconditionally (christians or whatever) could both be at least opened to realization of each others underlying relationship. Maybe scientific minds need to be more tolerable and allow a bit of faith. Maybe christians (or others) need to stop being stubborn and allow their minds to except logical imagination as the ultimate device (but not the only) for explaining the world they live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted May 8, 2003 Share Posted May 8, 2003 Christianity is wrong due to what I have dubbed the Omnipotence Paradox: To be omnipotent one must also be omniscient. To be omniscient is to know the future (and a good heckuvalot of other things). Yet to know the future, you assume that there is only one future. Therefore the number of actions God can take is limited to one. But omnipotence means (amongst other things) that you can do anything. Therefore omnipotence is impossible. Christianity claims that God is omnipotent. Therefore Christianity is wrong. q.e.d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Iodius Posted May 10, 2003 Share Posted May 10, 2003 Templar you must be careful in calling anyone wrong, especially using an argument that is not definitive in any direction. The "Omnipotence Paradox" is a common theological and philisophical problem many have, and it has been countered very well by many theologians. Calling someone or something, especially on a sensitive subject such as religion, wrong only causes strife and unfortunately garners you no respect among those of us who atleast admit that we *may* be wrong in our respective views. If you are right with your apparent paradox why on Earth does monotheistic religion exist at all? I believe it is because your paradox is only a theory and one that can be very well argued against, causing a reasonable doubt in your theory, which makes it indefinitive and therefore, just a theory. Not right or wrong. I will not recycle old theologians responses, you can find them yourself. Bed time Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Originally posted by BrodieCadden If you are right with your apparent paradox why on Earth does monotheistic religion exist at all? Because people aren't rational. I believe it is because your paradox is only a theory and one that can be very well argued against, causing a reasonable doubt in your theory, which makes it indefinitive and therefore, just a theory. Not right or wrong. Desist this misuse of the word 'theory'. The word that you are looking for is 'hypothesis'. As a note on the side, I do accept that I can be wrong. And I frequently am. And what's more I tend to admit it. But only when presented with proof. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Homuncul Posted May 20, 2003 Share Posted May 20, 2003 Christianity is wrong due to what I have dubbed the Omnipotence Paradox: To be omnipotent one must also be omniscient. To be omniscient is to know the future (and a good heckuvalot of other things). Yet to know the future, you assume that there is only one future. Therefore the number of actions God can take is limited to one. But omnipotence means (amongst other things) that you can do anything. Therefore omnipotence is impossible. Christianity claims that God is omnipotent. Therefore Christianity is wrong. q.e.d. ShadowT you're right and I've got and there's another similar thing to what you say, I think it's even more precise: I. God's omnipotent and infinite He exists within our time borders and doesn't know the future Therefore he's limited and not omnipotent (still some can guess that he chooses to be limited due to his omnipotency, but I've never figured it out of the bible in any way) II. God's omnipotent and infinite God's perceives time completely in all directions past and future Ther's no nead to worry about soul's salvation cauze god had already decide about every soul, also fate is in town and no free will available (if not multiverse considered) --------------------------- Therefore biblical god is something too simple to be an ultimate cause for our reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted May 23, 2003 Share Posted May 23, 2003 Originally posted by Homuncul (if not multiverse considered) And with the 'multiverse' interpretation, God would be no more than an immesurably powerful computer. Doesn't sound very divine to me. Originally posted by Homuncul Therefore biblical god is something too simple to be an ultimate cause for our reality q.e.d. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.