If Stephen Fry Met God - Revisited God & Problem of Evil

[knapplc]

Mr. Cox said a few things, all based on theory (because we just don't know):

 

The Universe may be all there is. And at the edge is both nothing & infinity.

 

The Universe may be one of a multitude (perhaps infinite) realities. We may be just one of dozens, hundreds, millions, infinite realities. In each of those realities is a universe every bit as real as ours, with its own physics, its own up, down, sideways and left.

 

The Universe may have been created when two different realities, two "Branes," collided. Or a multitude of Branes. Maybe there's only one universe. Maybe there's billions, or an infinite number.

 

String Theory, one of whose proponents is Brian Greene (whose lecture at Stanford in 2000 I sat in on - a lifetime highlight), says there's dozens of dimensions, dozens of realities, and we're only able to postulate those via mathematics & philosophy what they are. When those realities (those membranes or "Branes"), they spawn new dimensions, new universes. In that theory, we're just one bubble of matter on an endless sea of colliding Branes.

[zoogs]

What an inscrutable mystery! Too bad we're just p-branes.

[JJ Husker]

We're making some real headway here. I bet within another page or two we'll have the definitive answers for; Is there a God? And, Which is the correct religion?

 

Sorry, I automatically get glassy eyed when people expect proof to be supplied for something that cannot be proven. Of course I'm not claiming I'm right and others wrong so I don't need to prove squat. I can tell somebody what I believe.......the rest is up to them. Any attempt beyond that may be intriguing verbal gymnastics but that's all it will ever be. Sorry, it can't be scientifically proven that God exists....but I am convinced he does. Most arguments against God are really arguments against religion(s) and religion(s) are the creation of men. That is why this issue needs to be simplified to figuring out if there is a higher power or not. That may be tough to prove scientifically but it sure does seem to be a whole lot more likely than this all being random chance born out of a puddle of goo.

[zoogs]

JJ, I agree so much where you say most arguments against God are arguments against religion, and that religions are made by man.

 

Here's my thing. What exists beyond the boundaries of the observable can't be known, as you say. It's extremely interesting to speculate, though. And that's a fine part of the human experience which should be denied no one.

 

Human ethics and behavior should be open season for discussion, though. Thoughts about how to best spend our live should be accessible to everyone. Religion often seems to lock it down. The conversation stops at "that's what I believe God wants." We're too global to be this exclusionary. Think of the people within one country who have similar values and face similar lives - but have to see themselves as fundamentally different sets of people. The deity question is not the reason for that.

[TGHusker]

I've been reading this book and have found it to be very helpful in framing the whole discussion we have had. Keller summarizes the view of various religions & cultures through out history including atheism. He discusses/summarizes the philosophical arguments as we have in our discussion. However, as a pastor, he takes the next steps and makes the last half of the book practical - discussing the hope and resources found in Christian faith for the times we suffer - using no trite or pat answers. It is a very good read for anyone wanting help while facing difficult life issues or trying to understand the 'big' picture. I highly recommend it.

 

Author: Timothy Keller Walking with God through Pain and Suffering

 

http://www.amazon.com/Walking-God-through-Pain-Suffering/dp/0525952454/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1434986986&sr=8-1&keywords=walking+with+god+in+pain+and+suffering

[Landlord]

Here's my thing. What exists beyond the boundaries of the observable can't be known, as you say.

 

 

Says who? I think a sentence like this is loaded with presuppositions. You can say it can't be known to science, or it can't be proven empirically, or it can't be known tangibly in the same way that I know I have skin and eyeballs, but why can't it be known?

[zoogs]

Uh, well, if it isn't known to science, then it isn't known. Individuals or groups of people may feel differently, but that is belief (or 'belief knowledge', if you like?), not empirical knowledge. If it were empirical then it would be fact.

 

Really didn't think that statement would be controversial. Kind of the basis of science, and picking at the semantics won't change that.

[Landlord]

Not like it really matters, but I don't think that science has a monopoly on the definition of the word. It probably is mostly semantics, but I'm sure you and I both, tons of times throughout the day, say, "I know ________" without any kind of conscious thought towards whether we actually do know it. We just believe that we do

[BigRedBuster]

And, science doesn't always "know" the truth. Science has always stated facts as they believe them to be. Throughout history, science has had to restate what reality is when they learn more and realize they were wrong.

 

So, to say, "if it's known to science then it's known" is somewhat not quite true.

[zoogs]

Science does have a 'monopoly' on empirical knowledge.

 

Yes, in conversation, we are typically not applying the standards of peer review and empiricism. Let's not undo the scientific method over that!

 

Anyway, if it helps, what I was trying to say in that snippet is that I think we can all accept that some things are beyond the boundaries of what can be empirically proven...

 

And, science doesn't always "know" the truth. Science has always stated facts as they believe them to be. Throughout history, science has had to restate what reality is when they learn more and realize they were wrong.

 

So, to say, "if it's known to science then it's known" is somewhat not quite true.

Yeah, let's not personify science, either, I agree. Science represents what, at the time and given our efforts, is the extent of our knowledge and understanding. Of course it's not all encompassing or flawless, and that recognition of limits and a constant need for better and newer understanding is its bedrock.

 

This does not mean "science doesn't have everything, so we should turn elsewhere to fill in the gaps." It means, "where there are gaps, understand that they are gaps."

[BigRedBuster]

Science does have a 'monopoly' on empirical knowledge.

 

Yes, in conversation, we are typically not applying the standards of peer review and empiricism. Let's not undo the scientific method over that!

 

Anyway, if it helps, what I was trying to say in that snippet is that I think we can all accept that some things are beyond the boundaries of what can be empirically proven...

I think in general we are agreeing on most of what we are saying.

 

However, let's not act like the scientific method is perfect.

 

LINK

[zoogs]

^ That is failure to do good science, which has always happened (was there a bygone era where all scientists did perfect work?), not a rational criticism of the scientific method.

[BigRedBuster]

^ That is failure to do good science, which has always happened (was there a bygone era where all scientists did perfect work?), not a rational criticism of the scientific method.

Bad science and good science are all in the same realm of "science" when the public doesn't know which is which. Right now, there are things we all think we know because of science that are flat out wrong. Now, in theory, science is the constant quest for the truth. However, that is theory. There are lots of reasons why science fails at that.

[NUance]

 

Science does have a 'monopoly' on empirical knowledge.

 

Yes, in conversation, we are typically not applying the standards of peer review and empiricism. Let's not undo the scientific method over that!

 

Anyway, if it helps, what I was trying to say in that snippet is that I think we can all accept that some things are beyond the boundaries of what can be empirically proven...

I think in general we are agreeing on most of what we are saying.

 

However, let's not act like the scientific method is perfect.

 

LINK

 

 

^ That is failure to do good science, which has always happened (was there a bygone era where all scientists did perfect work?), not a rational criticism of the scientific method.

 

 

Just last month, a team of researchers published the findings of a project to replicate 100 of psychology's biggest experiments. They were only able to replicate 39 of the experiments, and one observer — Daniele Fanelli, who studies bias and scientific misconduct at Stanford University in California — told Nature that the reproducibility problem in cancer biology and drug discovery may actually be even more acute.

—quote from BRB's link above to the Vox article

 

Wow! I had no idea this was such a huge problem. This is terrible. Aren't there *any* honest people anymore?

 

I guess as long as it pays to be dishonest, we'll have lies and fraud. Instead of actual results.

[TGHusker]

Another well know contradictory scientific topic is climate change: 1970s global cooling was going to kill us all off, 1990s-2000s global warming is going to kill us all off.