Heraclitus..................................................................Newton
Last week an interesting question emerged from the comments revolving around discussion of Lawrence Krauss's A Universe from Nothing. [1] Our Friendly atheist critic "Anonymous" ["Pixie"] said..."But we can easily imagine universes without God. Not so easy to imagine a universe without any laws of physics." My response: "Modern science formulated the notion of laws of physics from taking out the personality of God and leaving the calculation of mind with power,you talk like science arrived at it;s viewpoint in one afternoon with no knowledge of religion. In reality it slowly evolved out of religious faith with help of thinkers who regarded both as truth." In paraphrasing the general discussion my basic position might be typified by one phrase I uttered: "physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called 'theory of everything' - then they will have seen into "the mind of God".
At this point Skeptical chimes in with his usual vibrato:
- Joe, that is religionist propaganda. It was a metaphor - not to be take literally. I will grant you that numerous religionists have misinterpreted what Hawking said. But Hawking WAS an atheist. Let me tell you what Hawking later said about his statement on knowing the mind of God (NOT seeing into the mind of God): Before we understand science, it is natural to believe that God created the universe. But now science offers a more convincing explanation,” he said. “What I meant by ‘we would know the mind of God’ is, we would know everything that God would know, if there were a God, which there isn’t. I’m an atheist.”[2]I know he's an atheist. I never said he believed in God. I said his idea borrowed from the general concept of of God. Throughout that discussion Pixie kept saying that the concept of God is not used in science now. I am not sure what he thinks he's getting out of that realization, but it's essentially true but also misleading. While God is not an operative concept in science today the God concept lurks behind the history of science and modern sciences are shaped by various attempts to take God out of the picture while capitalizing upon the effects of God. In other words the laws of physics are shaped by taking the personality of God away and leaving the power and law giving in place.The concept of God is covertly operative in modern science in that way and also in that modern science clearly seeks a transcendental signified to ground it;s law making upon.
Physicist Paul Davies tells us modern science has tended to avoid questions about the origins of physical law. They've left the question unanswered, "Traditionally, scientists have treated the laws of physics as simply "given", elegant mathematical relationships that were somehow imprinted on the universe at its birth, and fixed thereafter. Inquiry into the origin and nature of the laws was not regarded as a proper part of science." [3]
This shared failing is no surprise, because the very notion of physical law has its origins in theology. The idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws comes straight out of monotheism, which was the dominant influence in Europe at the time science as we know it was being formulated by Isaac Newton and his contemporaries. Just as classical Christianity presents God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe, so physicists envisage their laws as inhabiting an abstract transcendent realm of perfect mathematical relationships. Furthermore, Christians believe the world depends utterly on God for its existence, while the converse is not the case. Correspondingly, physicists declare that the universe is governed by eternal laws, but the laws remain impervious to events in the universe.[4]He reminds us: "Dumping the problem in the lap of a pre-existing designer is no explanation at all, as it merely begs the question of who designed the designer. But appealing to a host of unseen universes and a set of unexplained meta-laws is scarcely any better."[5] I don't think he takes seriously the anti-theological Jibber jabber about designing the designer,I think that;s just his way of saying how can we know with final certainty which it is?
That craving for certainty is the impetus behind grand unified theory of everything. Why add “of everything?” That clearly points to the transcendental signified.
In his best-selling book "A Brief History of Time", physicist Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists find the theory he and his colleagues are looking for - a so-called "theory of everything" - then they will have seen into "the mind of God". Hawking is by no means the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman, for example, has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions.[6]
Weinberg tells us the theory of everything will unite all aspects of physical reality in a single elegant explanation.[7] Exactly as does the TS! It's really describing a prescriptive set of laws, so it seems. If their theory can only give descriptions of how the universe behaves how is it going to explain everything? It seems explanatory power only comes with certainty about how things work. That is weaker with probable tendencies than with actual laws. Why are they looking for a single theory to sum it all up if they don't accept some degree of hierarchical causality?[8]
They still use the model of physical law, but they deny it's law-like aspects, yet they want it to be unalterable and to sum everything up in one principle. Don't look now but what she is describing is Transcendental Signified, which is the basic job description of God.
Clearly God lurks behind science. First in its development going back to the practices then if nothing else the preoccupation of modern physicists to escape God leads to modeling the universe after God;s work. They may not name God in the laws of physics but they are definitely conscious of working arouind him. The furthermost back I can go in finding thinkers who tried to formulate laws about the workings of the physical world is Heraclitus 335 BC. Even he had a theological view that was interspersed with his physical understanding. [9] "...He is deeply concerned with the moral implications of physical theory.....Heraclitus recognizes a divine unity behind the cosmos, one that is difficult to identify and perhaps impossible to separate from the processes of the cosmos,"[10]
In modern times the link between the making of laws of physics under Newton and God as law giver via Newton's Christianity is well documented. First his central role as the modern notion of physical law is well developed. [11]Some may be tempted to write off Newton's Christianity with "everyone was a Christian back then," no one who has studied Newton would say that. His Christianity was not only sincere but advanced:
His polished writings on theology were not the musings of a dilettante but were the products of a committed, brilliant and courageous analyst. If he had published his ideas in the late seventeenth century, he would have had to leave the university, and would almost certainly have retired to what he would have seen as the freedom of his manor in Lincolnshire. He would never have enjoyed the senior political and administrative positions he was awarded in the early eighteenth century and indeed, would never have written the Principia or Opticks. With his appointment at the Mint, and the fame he garnered as a result of his work in the exact sciences, he shed the identity of a retired Cambridge don, and became an eminent metropolitan public figure. He was promoted to Master of the Mint on Boxing Day 1699, and in 1703 he was made President of the Royal Society, being knighted for his services to the state two years later.[12]
We see science began as far back as we can go and in its early modern phases as an expression of God's creative working. In the old days scientists tried to understand God by understanding nature, now they try to play God by understanding nature.
NOTES
[1] J.L.Hinman, "Review and Debunking of Lawrence Krauss's A Universe From Nothing." comments, Metacrock;s Bloog, (MARCH 06, 2019)
http://metacrock.blogspot.com/2019/03/review-and-debnucking-of-lawrence.html
[accessed 3/15/19]
[2] Skeptoical quoted Ibid,
[3] Paul Davies, "Yes the Universe looks like a fix: But That Doesn't Mean a God Fixed it." The Guardian, (June 25, 2007) 19.7 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2007/jun/26/spaceexploration.comment
[accessed 3/15/19]
[4] Ibid
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid
counterbalance foundation offers this self identification: “Counterbalance is a non-profit educational organization working to promote the public understanding of science, and how the sciences relate to wider society. It is our hope that individuals, the academic community, and society as a whole will benefit from a struggle toward integrated and counterbalanced responses to complex questions.” see URL above. The faith anjd reason foundation helped fund the PBS show. I first founjd thye piece “Stephen Hawking's God early the century, maybe 2004, certainly before 2006. It was on a sight called Metalist on science and religion. That site is gone.
[8] Counter balance op cit
[9]Daniel W. Graham, Heraclitus (fl. c. 500 BCE) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, no date. https://www.iep.utm.edu/heraclit/#H6 [accessed 3/15/19]
Graham is at Brigham Young University
[10]Ibid
[11] Joshua Filmer, "Sir Isaac Newton: Father of Modern Science," F Futurism The Byte (December 25th 2013)
https://futurism.com/sir-isaac-newton-father-of-modern-science-2
[accessed 3/15/19]
[12]Robert Iliffe, "Newton's Religious life and Work," The Newton Project (2013)
http://www.newtonproject.ox.ac.uk/view/contexts/CNTX00001
[accessed 3/15/19]
39 comments:
We see science began as far back as we can go and in its early modern phases as an expression of God's creative working. In the old days scientists tried to understand God by understanding nature, now they try to play God by understanding nature.
- That's right. There is no question that most if not all early scientists believed in God. The very concept of "laws of nature" understood as the governing principles set down by God, the giver of the laws. So go pat yourself on the back. But these days, although we still use the word 'laws', we understand them to be our own expression of the observed regularities in nature. We no longer see any involvement of God in the workings of the natural world, as the creator, the giver of laws, or in any other way. God is completely superfluous. And the REAL triumph of science is that the more we learn about our world, the more we turn away from ancient beliefs and superstitions.
That's right. There is no question that most if not all early scientists believed in God. The very concept of "laws of nature" understood as the governing principles set down by God, the giver of the laws. So go pat yourself on the back. But these days, although we still use the word 'laws', we understand them to be our own expression of the observed regularities in nature. We no longer see any involvement of God in the workings of the natural world, as the creator, the giver of laws, or in any other way. God is completely superfluous. And the REAL triumph of science is that the more we learn about our world, the more we turn away from ancient beliefs and superstitions.
You are so good at missing the point:
(1)It's already shipped the way they respond to nature and they are just following in Mold.
(2) While they are fighting against belief in God they being controlled by it, it;s influencing them negativity.
Reducing laws to descriptions opens lots of problems for science. First, it doesn't adequately summarize what happens in nature. Things fall toward the center of mass that;s a lot more regular than just a description,that's obviously a mandate.
Second problem demotion of laws to descriptions opens the door to miracles, those are descriptions too.If there is not mandate as to how nature must behave but merely a description of what it does then those who see it doing more than is realized have more of a reason to trust their experiences. There is no check on what nature might produce because there's no mandate.
(1)It's already shipped the way they respond to nature and they are just following in Mold.
- You are following in the mold of ancient, outdated beliefs. While we have many remnants of those beliefs in out culture and our language, science helps us to break out of the mold.
(2) While they are fighting against belief in God they being controlled by it, it;s influencing them negativity.
- That's your opinion, and you are wrong. Religion is a negative influence in that it keeps us from a better understanding of reality.
Reducing laws to descriptions opens lots of problems for science.
- It is not reduction. It is a more clear understanding of reality. The word 'law' originally meant the mandate of some law-giver. And that was the concept of early scientists like Newton. But as we gain understanding, that concept no longer applies, even though we still use the same word. But you still want it to mean the mandate of God. You are living in the past.
First, it doesn't adequately summarize what happens in nature. Things fall toward the center of mass that;s a lot more regular than just a description,that's obviously a mandate.
- The old understanding of 'law' doesn't apply. It is not a mandate. Things simply behave the way they do.
Second problem demotion of laws to descriptions opens the door to miracles, those are descriptions too.If there is not mandate as to how nature must behave but merely a description of what it does then those who see it doing more than is realized have more of a reason to trust their experiences. There is no check on what nature might produce because there's no mandate.
- This statement assumes God as the law-giver. Without his laws, anything goes, including miracles. But natural reality doesn't assume a law-giver. There IS regularity in nature, and God has nothing to do with it.
Joe (1)It's already shipped the way they respond to nature and they are just following in Mold.
- You are following in the mold of ancient, outdated beliefs. While we have many remnants of those beliefs in out culture and our langua
you are of course out of it. You are making 19th century assumptions believing them to be the lattes thing because you are uneducated. In graduate school we learned how backward modernism is. You need to join postmodern reality.Truth is timeless,
Joe (2) While they are fighting against belief in God they being controlled by it, it;s influencing them negativity.
- That's your opinion, and you are wrong. Religion is a negative influence in that it keeps us from a better understanding of reality.
how absurd, i did not mean your new is negative as in bad i said they are influenced negaTLIVLEY instead of doing what Christians want then to do they do the opposite but that;still being contorled, in reverse ,
Joe reduce la to description makes problems
- It is not reduction. It is a more clear understanding of reality.
Of course it's reduction, instead of laws it just a description that;s demolition it trying to remove any suggestion of mind or will that;s an example of negative control, To avoid having any suggestion of God they weaken the system and open up o miracles
The word 'law' originally meant the mandate of some law-giver. And that was the concept of early scientists like Newton. But as we gain understanding, that concept no longer applies, even though we still use the same word. But you still want it to mean the mandate of God. You are living in the past.
It's not like they discovered there;'s no law giver,they they just try to avoid belief in God.They erase any suggestion of a law giver and so weaken the concept, it has made a lot of problems. they do a double talk as they impose law like statements when needed then back away when God is implied
Joe First, it doesn't adequately summarize what happens in nature. Things fall toward the center of mass that;s a lot more regular than just a description,that's obviously a mandate.
- The old understanding of 'law' doesn't apply. It is not a mandate. Things simply behave the way they do.
bull shit,if towing the part line. attract to to center of mass is what happens but it;s obviously more law like than not.What is being described in all description is the law like nature,
Joe Second problem demotion of laws to descriptions opens the door to miracles, those are descriptions too.If there is not mandate as to how nature must behave but merely a description of what it does then those who see it doing more than is realized have more of a reason to trust their experiences. There is no check on what nature might produce because there's no mandate.
- This statement assumes God as the law-giver. Without his laws, anything goes, including miracles. But natural reality doesn't assume a law-giver. There IS regularity in nature, and God has nothing to do with it.
Natural reality assured law giver when the laws of nature were charted, The only reason stopped was God haters became scientists, the French Philesophes.
you didn;t answer the argument,
I don't want to get into an unproductive argument with IM, but it's clear he doesn't really understand the points Joe is making, which are really quite self-evident.
Joe: You need to join postmodern reality.Truth is timeless,
That sounds like the reverse og post-modernism to me!
Joe: Natural reality assured law giver when the laws of nature were charted, The only reason stopped was God haters became scientists, the French Philesophes.
The reason it stopped is there was no evidence to support it. We do not know where the laws come from, therefore we cannot say where they come from.
And so God is absent from modern science.
Joe: You need to join postmodern reality.Truth is timeless,
That sounds like the reverse og post-modernism to me!
PM's don;t lionize time periods
Joe: Natural reality assured law giver when the laws of nature were charted, The only reason stopped was God haters became scientists, the French Philesophes.
The reason it stopped is there was no evidence to support it. We do not know where the laws come from, therefore we cannot say where they come from.
there's a great deal of evidence to sport it.I just gave you some.you are begging the question. you are using your position to support your position.
And so God is absent from modern science.
God is lurkig behind behind modern science
I don't want to get into an unproductive argument with IM, but it's clear he doesn't really understand the points Joe is making, which are really quite self-evident.
- Yes, Kristen. It is unproductive when one of the people in the discussion is so one-dimensional that he can't see anything but God, and can't follow any logic that doesn't conclude with "God did it". Did you follow MY reasoning? Joe is playing with semantics, and pretending that human-contrived laws somehow necessitate the existence of a law-giver for nature itself, just because we use the same word ("law") for two very different things. His reasoning is not correct.
you are of course out of it. You are making 19th century assumptions believing them to be the lattes thing because you are uneducated. In graduate school we learned how backward modernism is. You need to join postmodern reality.Truth is timeless
- I don't follow any particular philosophical trends, and I don't care what the latest is. In bible college, you learned to reject anything that doesn't support your religious belief, regardless of logic or evidence, and that is your philosophy.
how absurd, i did not mean your new is negative as in bad i said they are influenced negaTLIVLEY instead of doing what Christians want then to do they do the opposite but that;still being contorled, in reverse
- And I meant that religious belief replaces reason with faith.
Of course it's reduction, instead of laws it just a description that;s demolition it trying to remove any suggestion of mind or will that;s an example of negative control, To avoid having any suggestion of God they weaken the system and open up o miracles
- It is not reduction. It is a more clear understanding of reality. The word 'law' originally meant the mandate of some law-giver. And that was the concept of early scientists like Newton. But as we gain understanding, that concept no longer applies, even though we still use the same word. Laws of nature are not mandates, nor have they ever been. They are completely different from the laws of men. They are only our understanding of the way nature behaves. It was only religious belief that led people to think they were mandates.
It's not like they discovered there;'s no law giver,they they just try to avoid belief in God.They erase any suggestion of a law giver and so weaken the concept, it has made a lot of problems. they do a double talk as they impose law like statements when needed then back away when God is implied
- Most of us never "discovered" that there is no Santa. It is something we come to understand as our thinking matures, and we set aside childish fantasies.
bull shit,if towing the part line. attract to to center of mass is what happens but it;s obviously more law like than not.What is being described in all description is the law like nature
- "Attraction to the center of mass" is a description of how things behave. It is not an edict that someone made. It is reality.
Natural reality assured law giver when the laws of nature were charted, The only reason stopped was God haters became scientists, the French Philesophes.
- Where does this "chart" exist? The reason we stopped believing that is because we matured in our understanding. Like Superman and Santa Claus, God is a childhood hero for immature minds.
dimensional that he can't see anything but God, and can't follow any logic that doesn't conclude with "God did it". Did you follow MY reasoning? Joe is playing with semantics, and pretending that human-contrived laws somehow necessitate the existence of a law-giver for nature itself, just because we use the same word ("law") for two very different things. His reasoning is not correct.
you are talking about the argument I put on the cadre blog,this is not it, this is not a God argument, You did not beat the argument I made on the other page,and I;m not sure you understand it, I know you do;t understand this.
JLHyou are of course out of it. You are making 19th century assumptions believing them to be the lattes thing because you are uneducated. In graduate school we learned how backward modernism is. You need to join postmodern reality.Truth is timeless
- I don't follow any particular philosophical trends, and I don't care what the latest is. In bible college, you learned to reject anything that doesn't support your religious belief, regardless of logic or evidence, and that is your philosophy.
I never went to a Bible college and I doubt you did either. you do;t know anything,you are totally ignorant, making up that you understand the attitude of your opponent does not cover the fact that you do not understand what is being said, You don't know the difference in a real seminary and a bible college
Metahow absurd, i did not mean your new is negative as in bad i said they are influenced negaTLIVLEY instead of doing what Christians want then to do they do the opposite but that;still being contorted, in reverse
- And I meant that religious belief replaces reason with faith
you express faith in science all the time. Your statement is obviously stupid because you don't know reason when it bites your ass. .
JLHOf course it's reduction, instead of laws it just a description that;s demolition it trying to remove any suggestion of mind or will that;s an example of negative control, To avoid having any suggestion of God they weaken the system and open up o miracles
- It is not reduction. It is a more clear understanding of reality. The word 'law' originally meant the mandate of some law-giver. And that was the concept of early scientists like Newton. But as we gain understanding, that concept no longer applies, even though we still use the same word. Laws of nature are not mandates, nor have they ever been. They are completely different from the laws of men. They are only our understanding of the way nature behaves. It was only religious belief that led people to think they were mandates.
JLHIt's not like they discovered there;'s no law giver,they they just try to avoid belief in God.They erase any suggestion of a law giver and so weaken the concept, it has made a lot of problems. they do a double talk as they impose law like statements when needed then back away when God is implied
- Most of us never "discovered" that there is no Santa. It is something we come to understand as our thinking matures, and we set aside childish fantasies.
That;s your pretense at actual reason is it?
JLHbull shit,if towing the party line. attract to to center of mass is what happens but it;s obviously more law like than not.What is being described in all description is the law like nature
- "Attraction to the center of mass" is a description of how things behave. It is not an edict that someone made. It is reality.
It's Newton;s occult force.why should the center of mass have attraction?
JLHNatural reality assured law giver when the laws of nature were charted, The only reason stopped was God haters became scientists, the French Philesophes.
- Where does this "chart" exist? The reason we stopped believing that is because we matured in our understanding. Like Superman and Santa Claus, God is a childhood hero for immature minds.
doesn;t matter if you stopped the point is the concept of God is behind modern scinece, thats part of the metaphysical foundations of early modern science,
Skepers go backan read A.E. Burtt again
Skepers go backan read A.E. Burtt again
- I think you should read it. You don't even know the title of the book, let alone what it says (and I have told you this before.)
O told you you ignorant little undergraduate I read that book over 20 years ago in Ph.D. work I and discussed it with professors,something you have not done.
The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science that's the stile what did I say it was?
I bet Ive read a thousand more books than you have,
You do not even know what point he was making
It's E.A Burtt mot A.E. why didn't you catch that?
IM said: "Yes, Kristen. It is unproductive when one of the people in the discussion is so one-dimensional that he can't see anything but God, and can't follow any logic that doesn't conclude with "God did it". Did you follow MY reasoning? Joe is playing with semantics, and pretending that human-contrived laws somehow necessitate the existence of a law-giver for nature itself, just because we use the same word ("law") for two very different things. His reasoning is not correct."
I'm not going to argue with you, IM. But it's clear from what you said above that you don't understand the argument Joe is making, and thus are not addressing it. Your reasoning really doesn't have much to do with the opening post. And whether or not "God did it" isn't even on-topic here, so Joe hasn't said anything one way or the other about that.
That's all I'm going to say. I don't think any further pointing out that you're over there barking up a tree that has no coon in it, is going to do any of us any good.
But it's clear from what you said above that you don't understand the argument Joe is making, and thus are not addressing it.
- It's clear that you don't follow the progression of the discussion. My first comment directly addressed what Joe says in his post. After that, who knows where it will go, as Joe responds with his usual ranting and raving?
Joe says "Clearly God lurks behind science. First in its development going back to the practices then if nothing else the preoccupation of modern physicists to escape God leads to modeling the universe after God;s work. They may not name God in the laws of physics but they are definitely conscious of working arouind him". He says modern scientists "are fighting against belief in God". He obviously has ZERO understanding of the real basis of scientific understanding. He's trying to make it all about God, because that's all his tiny little one-dimensional mind can fathom. He doesn't get the idea that scientists are only trying to better understand reality, whatever that reality may be, and that scientific understanding, not the resistance of scientists, is what leads us away from religious belief.
He says modern scientists "are fighting against belief in God". He obviously has ZERO understanding of the real basis of scientific understanding.
I did PhD work in history and Philosophy of science you don;t know what history/philosophy f science is
He's trying to make it all about God,
where did I say it's all about God? where does lurking behind become all about?
because that's all his tiny little one-dimensional mind can fathom.
You ignorant unread little lout
He doesn't get the idea that scientists are only trying to better understand reality,
prove it. pt your money where your intaglio stupor little mouth is clod.
whatever that reality may be, and that scientific understanding, not the resistance of scientists, is what leads us away from religious belief.
why is it no major scientists say that?
But it's clear from what you said above that you don't understand the argument Joe is making, and thus are not addressing it.
- It's clear that you don't follow the progression of the discussion. My first comment directly addressed what Joe says in his post. After that, who knows where it will go, as Joe responds with his usual ranting and raving?
Joe says "Clearly God lurks behind science. First in its development going back to the practices then if nothing else the preoccupation of modern physicists to escape God leads to modeling the universe after God;s work. They may not name God in the laws of physics but they are definitely conscious of working arouind him". He says modern scientists "are fighting against belief in God". He obviously has ZERO understanding of the real basis of scientific understanding.
I already quoted modern physicists gains that dunce, Not only Davies but Wineglass
He's trying to make it all about God, because that's all his tiny little one-dimensional mind can fathom. He doesn't get the idea that scientists are only trying to better understand reality, whatever that reality may be, and that scientific understanding, not the resistance of scientists, is what leads us away from religious belief.
yow do you turn Lurking behind into all about? dunce?
I did PhD work in history and Philosophy of science you don;t know what history/philosophy f science is
- And I studied real science. I have a much better appreciation of what science is.
where did I say it's all about God? where does lurking behind become all about?
- Your whole article is about how God pervades scientific thought - Going back to the Greek, and persisting in natural laws, right up to modern times, when scientists try to "escape God". The message is loud and clear. Anyone reading your article would conclude the same thing I did.
prove it. pt your money where your intaglio stupor little mouth is clod.
- Why don't you prove that modern scientists are trying to escape God? That's ridiculous. Most of them don't waste their time thinking about something that doesn't exist. You have the absurd idea that everybody believes deep down inside, and they're fighting against it. You're wrong. You do not understand scientific thinking.
why is it no major scientists say that?
- Why don't you tell us what they say? Show us where atheist scientists admit yo this theistic belief that they are fighting against.
I already quoted modern physicists gains that dunce, Not only Davies but Wineglass
- Back to the "theory of everything" again? It isn't about God, Joe. It about a unification of scientific theories, and God has NOTHING to do with it.
yow do you turn Lurking behind into all about? dunce?
- It's your gross misrepresentation of what scientific "laws" are. It's your stupid idea that the theory of everything is about God. It's your unfounded claims that atheist scientists are trying to fight against God in formulating their theories. It's ALL about God, as far as your limited understanding goes.
JLHI did PhD work in history and Philosophy of science you don;t know what history/philosophy f science is
- And I studied real science. I have a much better appreciation of what science is.
that gives you nothing in a discussion on philosophy of science, or even methodology. Regular science classes do nothing for that.
JLHwhere did I say it's all about God? where does lurking behind become all about?
- Your whole article is about how God pervades scientific thought - Going back to the Greek, and persisting in natural laws, right up to modern times, when scientists try to "escape God". The message is loud and clear. Anyone reading your article would conclude the same thing I did.
Of course you did not actual read it. you are making big general statements that ignore the specifics I mapped out.You are having an emotional reaction
JLHprove it. pt your money where your intaglio stupor little mouth is clod.
- Why don't you prove that modern scientists are trying to escape God?
I already quoted one saying so
That's ridiculous. Most of them don't waste their time thinking about something that doesn't exist. You have the absurd idea that everybody believes deep down inside, and they're fighting against it. You're wrong. You do not understand scientific thinking.
Another emotional reaction you have not the slightest idea since you don't know that Wineglass said so
JLHwhy is it no major scientists say that?
- Why don't you tell us what they say? Show us where atheist scientists admit yo this theistic belief that they are fighting against.
I already did read the article
JLHI already quoted modern physicists gains that dunce, Not only Davies but Wineglass
- Back to the "theory of everything" again? It isn't about God, Joe. It about a unification of scientific theories, and God has NOTHING to do with it.
another proof you did not read the article
JLHyow do you turn Lurking behind into all about? dunce?
- It's your gross misrepresentation of what scientific "laws" are. It's your stupid idea that the theory of everything is about God.
I am not the one who said it;s about God Wineglass did. and others.I never said it;s abouit God that is misquoting me, I really shoud ban you by not reading the article and not dealing with it acuratley you are screwing real discussion
It's your unfounded claims that atheist scientists are trying to fight against God in formulating their theories. It's ALL about God, as far as your limited understanding goes.
read the material you little jerk
here is a quote rrom the paper by counterbalace
"Lederman has suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be like looking into the face of God. But what kind of God are these physicists talking about? Theoretical physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg suggests that in fact this is not much of a God at all. Weinberg notes that traditionally the word "God" has meant "an interested personality". But that is not what Hawking and Lederman mean. Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony", a set of mathematical equations. Weinberg questions then why they use the word "god" at all. He makes the rather profound point that "if language is to be of any use to us, then we ought to try and preserve the meaning of words, and 'god' historically has not meant the laws of nature." The question of just what is "God" has taxed theologians for thousands of years; what Weinberg reminds us is to be wary of glib definitions."
that shows the folly of your "reading" in several ways
"Weinberg tells us the theory of everything will unite all aspects of physical reality in a single elegant explanation.[7] Exactly as does the TS!"
(1) affairms my view of Wimeberg saying he wantx to getaway fron God
(2) demonstrates that I did not say it's all about God since most of waht they say here is that it;s not about God.
(3) Their "god", he says, is really just "an abstract principle of order and harmony",
there are theologians who say that too dumb ass study theology
that gives you nothing in a discussion on philosophy of science, or even methodology. Regular science classes do nothing for that.
- At least I know what science is and what it seeks to accomplish. You clearly don't.
Of course you did not actual read it. you are making big general statements that ignore the specifics I mapped out.You are having an emotional reaction
- What you "mapped out" is your own idea of how God persists in science. Your notion of the theory of everything being about the "transcendental signified" is just plain stupid. It is about the unification of scientific theories, and it has noting whatsoever to do with your "transcendental signified" or God.
I already quoted one saying so
- No you didn't. I see no quote in your article that says anything like that.
Another emotional reaction you have not the slightest idea since you don't know that Wineglass said so
- This is the most baffling of all your statements. You obviously don't hear what Weinberg is saying about Hawking and Lederman. Yes, they use the word God, but Weinberg notes correctly that "this is not much of a God at all." In other words, they are NOT talking about God, but just using the word to mean something profound. Weinberg goes on to lament that the word "God" no longer means what it did in the past, and questions whether they should use such language at all, because they really aren't talking about God. I understand what Weinberg is saying. You don't get it.
another proof you did not read the article
- You linked the theory of everything with the "transcendental signified", which is just another name for God. The only similarity is a unification of ideas, but the scientific theory does not suggest anything transcendental. That is your attempt to insert God into science, but it has nothing to do with God.
I am not the one who said it;s about God Wineglass did.
- No, Joe. He said it's NOT about God, but they are just using that word to mean something different. Read it again. He's complaining that they use the word God, and thereby changing the meaning of the word, because it isn't God they're talking about.
JLHthat gives you nothing in a discussion on philosophy of science, or even methodology. Regular science classes do nothing for that.
- At least I know what science is and what it seeks to accomplish. You clearly don't.
I don't think you do know, if you knew what science is you would not worship it and treat it like a God, you would allow one to be critical of it being critical science is part of the attitude of investigation that science needs to flourish,
JLHOf course you did not actual read it. you are making big general statements that ignore the specifics I mapped out.You are having an emotional reaction
- What you "mapped out" is your own idea of how God persists in science.
again the would be "thinker" needs to take the Miller analogy test because he can't think in symmetrical terms. I say God is behind science and discuss the history of influences of God know nothing says God imn science he can;t understand the concept of a historical influence vs complementary working,
It offends his religion its an insult to the deification of science to suggest that god might be part of it,
Your notion of the theory of everything being about the "transcendental signified" is just plain stupid.
you think that because you don;t understand the concept, you sense that it somehow degrades the godhood of science but you don;t really know what it means so there;s no way you can say really
It is about the unification of scientific theories, and it has noting whatsoever to do with your "transcendental signified" or God.
the effect of the unification produces an explanation such that they will have a TS?
a section from my forthconig book:
"In principle this concept of a single elegant idea that explains everything is what science has been working toward for years. John Horgan says of Steven Weinberg, “In his 1993 book Dreams of a Final Theory, he extolled particle physics as the culmination of 'the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.' He predicted that 'the convergence of explanations down to simpler and simpler principles will eventually come to an end in a final theory.'”[17] A skeptic might question the scientific veracity or the idea of a single principle that reveals explanations built into the logical structure of nature. Yet in Dreams of a Final Theory, Weinberg tells us, “this is what our science is about: the discovery of explanations built into the logical structure of nature.”[18] David Deutsch a quantum physicist at Oxford produced a constructor theory that is a framework that unites all physical theories and eliminates the impossible in hopes of finding the basic principle that explains it all.[19] The concept of uniting theories and the meta law are organizing principles. The meta-law is a transcendental signifier, so where is the TS? That's the reality in the real world that these theories point to. The physicists are talking about things like gravity. The ideas in their minds that point to the TS are impersonal forces of nature; that single structure might well point to God and the physicists would have no way of knowing it or ruling it out. We have a couple of ways. One of them is to follow the logic of the argument. Clearly the premises are not ruled out by physics."
[17]xviiJohn Horgan, “Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg Still dreams of a final Theory,” Scientific American, (May 1, 2015) Graham isa marine biologist.
Online resourse, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/nobel-laureate-steven-weinberg-still-dreams-of-final-theory/ accessed 9/20/15
John Horgan was staff writter, A teacher at Stevens Institute of Technology, Horgan is the author of four books, including The End of Science, 1996, re-published with new preface 2015; and The End of War, 2012, paperback published 2014.
[18]xviiiSteven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory: Scientists Search For the Ultimate Laws of Nature. New York: Vintage, reprint edition, 1994, 10.
[19]xixZeeya Merali, ”A Meta-law to rule them all: Physicists Devise a Theory of Everything.” Scientific American, (May 26, 2014) online rfesource URL
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/
end section from book
fn 18 thereis Wineberg that spells out exactly what the TS is about.
Wineberg:John Horgan says of Steven Weinberg, “In his 1993 book Dreams of a Final Theory, he extolled particle physics as the culmination of 'the ancient search for those principles that cannot be explained in terms of deeper principles.' He predicted that 'the convergence of explanations down to simpler and simpler principles will eventually come to an end in a final theory.'”[17] A skeptic might question the scientific veracity or the idea of a single principle that reveals explanations built into the logical structure of nature. Yet in Dreams of a Final Theory, Weinberg tells us, “this is what our science is about: the discovery of explanations built into the logical structure of nature.”[18]
I already quoted one saying so
- No you didn't. I see no quote in your article that says anything like that.
Another emotional reaction you have not the slightest idea since you don't know that Wineglass said so
- This is the most baffling of all your statements. You obviously don't hear what Weinberg is saying about Hawking and Lederman. Yes, they use the word God, but Weinberg notes correctly that "this is not much of a God at all." In other words, they are NOT talking about God, but just using the word to mean something profound. Weinberg goes on to lament that the word "God" no longer means what it did in the past, and questions whether they should use such language at all, because they really aren't talking about God. I understand what Weinberg is saying. You don't get it.
Listen dumbass it doesn't matterifit;;s not much of a God,I already said myself it's not the Bible God, Thereaeother ideasofGodthyanBible.
the point is it is a TS that is God;s job so it;something that does God;s job
another proof you did not read the article
- You linked the theory of everything with the "transcendental signified", which is just another name for God.
you do not know what a Transcendental signaler is,it is not just another name for God little ignoratie. that is ratified knowledge even most philosophers don;t know what it means, no why would you know that,
the way this imbecile thinks, anyone who quotes something he likes they must not know about, He proves he has not read the article because he misses things the article answers,but when he says it it;s because he thinks its too good for a person he doenst like,
The only similarity is a unification of ideas, but the scientific theory does not suggest anything transcendental. That is your attempt to insert God into science, but it has nothing to do with God.
you think that means transcendent don;t you? you think if you say science has transcendental knowledge then you think it's like supernatural but it's not. Naturalistic knowledge can be transcendental and so can scientific knowledge,that statement is imbecilic
I am not the one who said it;s about God Wineglass did.
- No, Joe. He said it's NOT about God, but they are just using that word to mean something different. Read it again. He's complaining that they use the word God, and thereby changing the meaning of the word, because it isn't God they're talking about.
no he did not say it;s not about God He said not much of a God he intimidated it;s not about the God of Moses he did not say it;s absolutely not about any sort of God
9:08 AM Delete
you think that means transcendent don;t you? you think if you say science has transcendental knowledge then you think it's like supernatural but it's not. Naturalistic knowledge can be transcendental and so can scientific knowledge,that statement is imbecilic
Who was it that made this statement:
Either way, heather we try building a reductionist notion of the universe or heather we tear down the hierarchies of reason that implies a TS, we can never escape the TS. This inescapable nature of the transcendental signifier points to the a priori nature of the God concept. That reality is ordered by a single principle which gives meaning and rationality to all other principles is inescapable, but humanities multifarious attempts to understand that principle, and the frightening conclusion that the principle leads to a creator God is the logic inference. All of the many signs which have been used to understand this uber-sign imply an intelligent ordering rationality which makes sense of the universe, and therefore, logically must have created it in the first place. - Joe Hinman, Argument from Transcendental Signifier
Either way, heather we try building a reductionist notion of the universe or heather we tear down the hierarchies of reason that implies a TS, we can never escape the TS. This inescapable nature of the transcendental signifier points to the a priori nature of the God concept. That reality is ordered by a single principle which gives meaning and rationality to all other principles is inescapable, but humanities multifarious attempts to understand that principle, and the frightening conclusion that the principle leads to a creator God is the logic inference. All of the many signs which have been used to understand this uber-sign imply an intelligent ordering rationality which makes sense of the universe, and therefore, logically must have created it in the first place. - Joe Hinman, Argument from Transcendental Signifier
I still stand by that statement, that's where logic leads that does not mean that any talk of transcendental is supernatural it doesn't mean that you can't recognize transcendental truths about something that will not automatically make you a believer in God. It's like the concerto of logic, Both anesthetists and believers use logic that doesn't make one into the other,
If you follow logic inconstantly enough you will find God you are afraid to do that you are afraid to examine the truth, and yet we are not all going to put the pieces togehter in the same way,we can all start with ,pst of the same pieces
My use of the term transcendental us based upon Derridian usage and also the way it;s used by Van Til and Bansen and people who make the TAG.
It means something like the critical principle through which logic is understood. It's not just a matter of defining words but finding the over arching principle upon which meaning is based.
TS is transcendent but not necessarily in a supernatural sense, there an be naturalistic transcendence. Anything beyond a certain framework is transcendent of that framework.
Your argument that the "theory of everything" is equivalent to the "transcendental signified" is an attempt to inject God into science. There is NO equivalence between a unified scientific theory and your religious beliefs about the TS. Period.
Your argument that the "theory of everything" is equivalent to the "transcendental signified" is an attempt to inject God into science. There is NO equivalence between a unified scientific theory and your religious beliefs about the TS. Period.
stop Babbage you don't understand the basics, you have no argumemt you are just nixxing it because you don't like God.you have no idea what it's about
(1) TS an "attempt to inject God into science." the making of a theory uniting and explaining everything is a prori a TS. This the TS is the result of that scientific theory, like all other forms of thinking Science also houses an assumption based upon the TS
(2)science does that anyway even without GUt because laws of physics themselves actually do the job of a TS
(3)"NO equivalence between a unified scientific theory and your religious beliefs about the TS"--obviously i never said there;s equivalence, I said that theory milkweeds a TS and the TS is God;s' job description. That is not equivolance but it does mean God is still implied by science,
you haven made no attempt to think past this,all you are doing is is going "os not! is not!",
you haven made no attempt to think past this,all you are doing is is going "os not! is not!"
- If you had any scientific understanding, you would realize how wrong you are.
what does scientific undersigning have to do with it? how does knowing scene change the history of the idea?
what did I get wrong about science other than the question that has to do with the history of the idea?
You don't know anything at all about the "theory of everything". It is NOT about the TS. It has NOTHING to do with any grand over-arching organizing principle. It simply unites a couple of theories in particle physics, while having no impact on other parts of science. Furthermore, God doesn't "lurk behind" modern science at all. Science has moved past that totally and completely. God is nothing more than a remnant of archaic thinking that is embedded in our culture because it was there for so long. People still talk about "God" from purely cultural influences, even though they don't believe in any god, nor do they see any reason to believe in it. You seem to take that as evidence that God still forms a part of out understanding of nature, but you are wrong. You don't think like a scientist, and you don't understand scientific thinking.
You don't know anything at all about the "theory of everything". It is NOT about the TS. It has NOTHING to do with any grand over-arching organizing principle.
that is really stupid. I never said it's about TS it doesn't have to be about it to have the effect of it, that is ludicrously stupid,
It simply unites a couple of theories in particle physics, while having no impact on other parts of science.
you are not even rending to what cretin,
Furthermore, God doesn't "lurk behind" modern science at all. Science has moved past that totally and completely.
see the fae of God, know the mind of God,God particle/ they are obsessed with besting God so God is there in their midst, dumb ass.
God is nothing more than a remnant of archaic thinking that is embedded in our culture because it was there for so long. People still talk about "God" from purely cultural influences, even though they don't believe in any god, nor do they see any reason to believe in it.
God is the basis of all reality the ground of being, creator of all that is, your little know nothing science will dry up and blow away and be totally forgotten and God will still be young,
You seem to take that as evidence that God still forms a part of out understanding of nature, but you are wrong. You don't think like a scientist, and you don't understand scientific thinking.
ignorant little know nothing uneducated and unread
only the most outmoded uniformed backward poke who think God is outmoded and done away with and is part of the past and science is advancing and moving humanity forward,that was old out of date pre wwII thinking. The myth of progress.
this section is closed.
Post a Comment