Discussion about scientific issues as they relate to God and Christianity including archaeology, origins of life, the universe, intelligent design, evolution, etc.
...
The history of science can be viewed as the recasting of phenomena that were once thought to be accidents as phenomena that can be understood in terms of fundamental causes and principles. One can add to the list of the fully explained: the hue of the sky, the orbits of planets, the angle of the wake of a boat moving through a lake, the six-sided patterns of snowflakes, the weight of a flying bustard, the temperature of boiling water, the size of raindrops, the circular shape of the sun. All these phenomena and many more, once thought to have been fixed at the beginning of time or to be the result of random events thereafter, have been explained as necessary consequences of the fundamental laws of nature—laws discovered by human beings.
This long and appealing trend may be coming to an end. Dramatic developments in cosmological findings and thought have led some of the world’s premier physicists to propose that our universe is only one of an enormous number of universes with wildly varying properties, and that some of the most basic features of our particular universe are indeed mere accidents—a random throw of the cosmic dice. In which case, there is no hope of ever explaining our universe’s features in terms of fundamental causes and principles.
...
It's either deeply profound or a huge cop-out ....
Is this referring in particular to the so-called singularity or theory of everything that's been touted as inevitable by some? I seem to recal Hawkings in the past predicting that such a breakthrough could take place in his life.
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
If the universe and all that is are mere accidents, why should we trust their conclusions, as this would necessarily mean that their thoughts, reasoning, premises and conclusions are accidents too, with no warrant for being necessarily true. One cannot establish the truth of conclusions reached by accident, as it cannot be verified or repeated.
It can only be true, under their assumption, if it is necessarily true in every conceivable universe, in which case their theory is self-defeating.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
I read it as more the change in science from studying fairly well defined systems (atoms, geology, or gravity where reasonably isolated and characterized phenomena are studied) to borderline science (multiple universes, multiple dimensions where there are basically no observations to support or reject hypotheses).
sandy_mcd wrote:I read it as more the change in science from studying fairly well defined systems (atoms, geology, or gravity where reasonably isolated and characterized phenomena are studied) to borderline science (multiple universes, multiple dimensions where there are basically no observations to support or reject hypotheses).
From Physics to Metaphysics, at which point the line between Science and Religion tends to blur ....
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Does anyone else think that this writer is very biased, or am I very biased to falsely view this as being biased? What I mean is that he gives the idea of multiple univeses a little more credence than it deserves.
Romans 12:17 Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody.
I don't see how the idea of multiple universes can even be evaluated objectively, so no level of credibility can be assigned. In that sense it is similar to the theory that the Universe was created (a few minutes or a few thousands of years ago) with an appearance of age. There is no scientific way of determining if this is true.
