JCC God Exists.

Not that I care for this discussion at all, but "theoretical physics" doesn't mean "physics we don't believe is true." It refers to the type of support they offer for their position.

 

In terms of epistemology, no difference. As Jabba Wocky said, the proponents of the multi-verse(s) offer theoretical support of their belief. Thomas Aquinas offered 'theoretical' of his Church's belief(s), without appealing to revelation or even 'faith alone'.

The claims of religion being true/factual or false are not dependent upon any notional claims* of 'absolute truth' made by religion for itself. Dawkins, btw, treated 'religion/s claims' like the existence of a creator deity exactly as if they/it were 'theoretical' or a theory, claims of 'absolute truth' notwithstanding. So this excuse doesn't fly.

The both stand on the same ground, epistemically speaking (as I pointed out with Aquinas re: Theism, regardless of the 'revelation' factor of religion/deities). But the same 'comfort' angle that gets thrown at belief in god - ie "you want to believe in god because of X" - can be applied to the 'theory' of the multi-verse: some people WANT to believe in the multi-verse because would seem to be an alternative explanation for 'order' in the universe, would explain 'us', without any need for a creator god. This btw, is true. So does this invalidate the theory? Of course not.


*I've probably seen this 'absolute truth' claim from more non-believers about religion than I have from any 'spokesperson' of religion itself.

 

This is weak. Intellectual comfort is very different from the more personal/salvational comfort one gets from believing in Christianity.

Let's see how many fundies would deny that their religion is absolute truth. This line of argument is weak as well.

 

Tosche is quite the Beta.

 

Only "different" in your mind - or "different" for the purposes of rhetoric. Iow, asserted, not shown.

Since when did fundies become the 'yardstick' for anything beyond what fundies believe or say? For every fundy who says that, you have Christians that say "THIS SIDE OF HEAVEN, we believe." And it was mostly fundies opposing the evidentialist style of argument for Christianity (coincidence?).

If any position is 'weak', it's the one that says the physicists in question are absolved of any 'belief' in their theories by essence of their theoretical nature. Hail Mary pass no-go.

 

It is different for the purposes of rhetoric which is what this is all about. One is about an infantile need for a father figure, something that could be considered embarrassing.

Oh, classic. Fundies get to be ignored when their viewpoint isn't as subtle as Christian apologists need it to be for their arguments. Jesus, any other cliches you wish to drag up?

 

Turn this thing around. Fundies are convenient weapons to use against Christian theology/beliefs. How novel.

The 'cliche' is using fundies as representative of Christians as a whole. What next? Fred Phelps' Church?

 

Well, no duh.

The person who says "Nah-uh!" is always going to think it is irrelevant,because it is in their best interest to argue in that manner.

No, it is the other way around, unfortunately for you. Christian apologetics (or whatever the hell it is you are doing) loves to pull the bait and switch of encouraging fundie belief in followers, and yet distancing itself from simplistic rhetoric when apologists sense the ability to score points.

How many Christians actually even know who Thomas Aquinas is, let alone could quote any of his works?

The truth remains that the vast majority of argumentation for the Christian worldview I have ever seen attempts to prove the literal truth of Christian doctrine by arguing against established science.

Nope, nice try though, brah.

Are they not Christians?

 

To interject momentarily here, if one is going to argue against an ideology, philosophy, or religion as a whole, one really must restrict his or her arguments to things that are generalizable to the whole spectrum of said movement, not simply certain segments. Otherwise, one is only criticizing the particular segment in question.

 

"Jabba-wocky that's dodging!!! Lulz!!" - or so I'm told.

 

It is dodging. If you want to look at the effect of a system of belief, it is cheating to prematurely dismiss those outgrowths which contradict the case you want to make.

 

I'll thank you kindly to not tell us how we do our jobs or how we think. We don't believe in our theories. We think they are the most likely answers based on varying degrees of evidence (something Jabba-wocky alluded to).

 

The dismissal was "premature," then? Do you have some way to tie this discussion back to all the other branches of Christianity that weren't the one you were criticizing? I didn't see where anyone was saying that you were never allowed to mention that again, so much as there was a requested explanation for what it had to do with anything.

 

First, how does that "need daddy" aspect apply to ALL Christians?

Second, but more importantly, how does it determine/support/undermine whether the belief is true or not? You've yet to answer this.

"Nah-uh!", in other words.

That's nice, but you've yet to answer my question above.

That doesn't excuse using the lowest-common denominator in order score cheap points.

Your personal experience doesn't determine truth. The Catholic Church hierarchy accepts evolution, for one. I seriously doubt you know of what the Eastern Orthodox teaching is.

Nope, nice try though, brah.

Are they not Christians?[/quote]

Are they representative of what most churches teach?[/quote]

 

^^^^^This.

 

You have, I suspect, introduced yourself with the absolute barest notion of multiverse theory that you might dredge it up in the course of arguments (Such as this one) to beat with a stick in pursuit of furthering your own arguments. But I don't think you actually understand where multiverse theory falls in the realm of legitimate theoretical physics. I say this primarily because you continue to introduce it as a widespread, well-accepted theoretical notion.

It isn't.

Multiverse theory (There's no hyphen, incidentally, please stop that) is an extremely controversial hypothesis, primarily taken seriously due to its most visible proponents being Dr. Max Tegmark and Dr. Brian Greene, who are about as close to being modern rockstar physicists as you can get while not having much name recognizability outside of the field. Being a couple of excellent scientists, they're also fully cognizant of critiques regarding empirical testing of that hypothesis, which is why basically any multiverse theorist worth their salt is attempting to figure out where testing could be done, and in a couple of cases we have predictable patterns of CBR that we should be able to look into. Physicists abhor a non-testable hypothesis. In addition, you cite its creators' primary motivation as being a desire to devise an atheistic rationale for our existence. This is hogwash. Dr. Tegmark's primary position on the god question is one of strict nonconfrontation. The top man in multiverses doesn't give a flying ****, he just wants to do good science.

I could go on - I could rattle off lists upon lists of theorists who denounce any variety of multiverse interpretations, macro or quantum; I could go into the nuances of what constitutes a legitimate theoretical physics argument, since you clearly don't actually understand what the field is; hell, I could probably just talk about how the bulk of theorists don't even care about cosmology because it's, to paraphrase my own advisor, really big and consequently really boring; but that would all be so much extraneous detail that can all be summed up in the following sentence: please read up on what you're talking about.

 

I doubt it does. I was putting it forward as hypothetical piece of rhetoric, not one I was advocating.

It is wise decision making to factor in the question "Do people want something to be true?" when legitimately weighing the question of something being true.

It is actually better than doing the exact opposite, honestly.

Sketchy. I talked to my priest long ago when I was in RCIA and he certainly wasn't telling me that evolution was true. He was telling me "People can believe what you want, but it stops short of accepting evidence against God!"

They hew closer to the message and manner exhibited throughout the long history of Christianity than most modern feel good liberal sects.

 

What kind of weaksauce theorists are you hanging out with?

 

Quantum theorists. Cosmology is sexy, it isn't fun.

 

lol theorists

 

Post atomizer gonna atomize...

 

Ramza gave you quite the thrashing. No humor is going to heal that wound.

 

Yes....you're right. How can I go on???




- Cheerleaders gonna cheerlead

 

By opening a textbook.

Those help.

 

Speaking of 'help', would it 'help' that I own and have read Brian Green's book "The Fabric of the Cosmos"?