The Physics of God and the Quantum Gravity Theory of Everything

[trish]

So, I'm confused, does God exist?

There are no peer reviewed papers in any respected journals (that I know of) claiming to demonstrate the non-existence of God. On the other hand, there are no such papers (that I know of published after the nineteenth century) claiming to use the hypothesis that God exists to explain a physical, chemical or biological phenomenon. On the third hand, there are quite a number of ordained reverends, priests, preachers, bishops etc. who professionally endorse the claim of God's existence and even talk to Him. On the fourth hand, many of them (despite the fact they they all talk to God) disagree about what God says, thinks and intends for us to do. If you actually have the four hands required to follow this nonsense, you're probably the god Kali.

[trish]

It may therefore be wrong for people with religion to consider secular mortals as spiritually arid, but it is probably just as wrong for the secular humans to regard people with faith as deluded. You often find people in both communities who love the music of JS Bach, who dedicated all his music to the glory of God.

Not a satisfactory conclusion, but it's the best I can do.

The best we can do and all we can do.

BTW have I told you recently, that I thoroughly enjoy our discussions. Thanks for being an intelligent man focused on understanding, discovery and their clear communication.

[Jericho]

There are no peer reviewed papers in any respected journals (that I know of) claiming to demonstrate the non-existence of God. On the other hand, there are no such papers (that I know of published after the nineteenth century) claiming to use the hypothesis that God exists to explain a physical, chemical or biological phenomenon. On the third hand, there are quite a number of ordained reverends, priests, preachers, bishops etc. who professionally endorse the claim of God's existence and even talk to Him. On the fourth hand, many of them (despite the fact they they all talk to God) disagree about what God says, thinks and intends for us to do. If you actually have the four hands required to follow this nonsense, you're probably the god Kali.

Oh...Thanks for clearing that up!

[martin48]

I like a challenge especially one set by Trish. I found such a paper!

Scottish Journal of Theology

• Scottish Journal of Theology / Volume 58 / Issue 04 / November 2005, pp 468-484

Does ‘God’ exist?

A. N. Williams
Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge, CB2 1RH anw25@cam.ac.uk



Abstract

The essay considers the possible meanings of ‘God’ in Christian discourse, given its assertorial usage and in light of the doctrine of the Trinity. Examination of the grammar of analogous sentences highlights the problems of using ‘God’ as the subject of verbs of agency. In light of the enhypostasization of divine nature within the three persons of the Trinity, and in no other context, ‘God’ cannot designate any one person of the Trinity, nor the Three together, nor divine nature conceived anhypostatically and, given its propensity to mislead, use of ‘God’ in Christian discourse is called into question.



So it's all down to "examination of the grammar of analogous sentences" - so that's another mystery sorted.

There are no peer reviewed papers in any respected journals (that I know of) claiming to demonstrate the non-existence of God. On the other hand, there are no such papers (that I know of published after the nineteenth century) claiming to use the hypothesis that God exists to explain a physical, chemical or biological phenomenon. On the third hand, there are quite a number of ordained reverends, priests, preachers, bishops etc. who professionally endorse the claim of God's existence and even talk to Him. On the fourth hand, many of them (despite the fact they they all talk to God) disagree about what God says, thinks and intends for us to do. If you actually have the four hands required to follow this nonsense, you're probably the god Kali.

[trish]

That's what I get for not being specific...I meant "refereed scientific journals." Nevertheless, good find. A refereed paper in a professional journal of theology purporting ... purporting... what the fuck is it purporting?? Damn professional jargon and making words mean what you want them to mean!!

I have a very good friend and colleague who is in fact a theologian and she sometimes invites me to sit in on informal discussions with her colleagues. I give it a valiant effort but usually I have no idea what they're talking about.

[buttslinger]

[CENTER][SIZE="3"]It's a sad fuckin day when buttslinger is an authority on ANYTHING, but I saw God in the fifth grade. There was a STRAIGHT line heading FORWARD to GOD on the horizon. Below that line was a hazy area known as DESIRE.

So the answer is, God exists for me, but not you....you HEATHENS!!!

[Prospero]

I've met phyicists and biologists and cosmologists and many other scientists who believe firmly in some sort of creative principle underluing order which can be called God. There are all manner of theories that can be constructed in support of thisf. The anthropic principle is one which many cosmologists seem to favour - that the universe is as it is and we are in it because it was conceived for us. If everything was even just one tiny bit different then life would not be possible. The British scientist John Barrow a cosmologist, theoretical physicist, and mathematician and winner of the Templeton prize a few years ago - has written vast volumes on this. I've debated it with senior clerics - Christian and Muslim. In the end all admit that there is and must be a leap of faith. There is and can never ben scientific proof. I cannot make such a leap... though I suppose on occasions I'm tempted by the Pascalian wager.

[trish]

True enough. There are more believers among physicists than biologists, and they often lay out their reasons in books for laypersons, but very rarely if ever in refereed, scientific journals.

Fine tuning is indeed something that is discussed in professional papers and conferences. If the gravitational constant were a little smaller, matter would not have clumped into stars and galaxies. If the gravitational constant were bigger, the universe would have collapsed before life had time to evolve. The trouble is, all these exercises hold the other constants of nature at their known fixed values while fiddling with the one of interest. It has yet to be determined how large a domain of variation among all the constants together is tolerable to life as we know it (not to mention life as we don't know it). So we don't really know if there is a fine tuning problem. To know if there is or not we would first have to have a definitive calculation of how probable life is in a randomly chosen universe. We would have to specify chosen from what? Do we mean chosen from a prescribe set of models, or a real collection of multiverses? What do we mean by randomly chosen? What values of Planck's constant are possible choices and what distribution function applies? The basic physics is just not there to answers these questions and may never be there. Theoreticians and especially cosmologists do definitely do a lot of speculation in their professional papers...but they are usually honest about it and will warn you up front.

In almost everything people do there's a leap of faith. Scientific truth is not the same as 100% certainty. Indeed it knows better than to aim for certainty. It's content with approximations, refinements, revisions and muddling along.

Mathematicians on the other hand aspire to certainty. You gotta love 'em for the purity of their hearts. But even they make mistakes (oops...forgot to carry the one).

There is a faith that aspires to certainty, and a faith that is provisional and open to revision.

[Stavros]

So it's all down to "examination of the grammar of analogous sentences" - so that's another mystery sorted.

In a way, Martin, you draw attention to a core issue in communications that has been debated over the years, by Habermas, Rawls, and others: it isn't so much the epistemological question: how do we know what we know? but questions such as: how do we communicate with each other, and why does language not automatically solve differences once the rules of language have been agreed upon? The structural anthropology of Levi-Strauss, which owes a lot to the structural linguistics of Roman Jakobson, seeks a common language among peoples ancient and modern, north and south -because if we all share the same root modes of communicating what we mean by 'mother', 'hungry', 'good' and bad', the opportunity for peaceful co-existence as an intellectual idea seems solid.

What disrupts this congenial party, are modes of discourse which collide, not just in politics but also in religion. One of the issues which I doubt the arcane theologians in your link discuss, is the relationship of Christianity to the politics of democracy, and how western democracy has taken concepts of equality, justice, fairness, and particularly tolerance and obligation from Christianity which may not exist in other religious discourses. In these discourses, the meaning of, identification of, or proof of God is not as relevant as the practical application of what is claimed to be 'God's law' or 'God's will' or 'God's message'.

There was a time when the definition of such things was exclusively the preserve of priests, and for a long time the Catholic Church -indeed, most people, being illiterate had no other source of authority, which is an obvious reason why the Roman church treated literacy and the translation of religious texts from Latin into the vernacular as an heresy. In fact it was not heresy at all, but democratisation.

To cut a long argument short: secular humanists in the west have co-opted Christian ideals into many of their arguments on tolerance, equality and democracy. This doesn't make them closet Christians who should own up and admit their believe in God, but it does offer a more subtle relationship between believers and unbelievers.

[fred41]

I've met phyicists and biologists and cosmologists and many other scientists who believe firmly in some sort of creative principle underluing order which can be called God.

You sure those aren't just the stoners in the bunch? You have to get close to see if you smell Taco Bell on their breath....or tell-tale orange Cheez Doodle powder under their fingernails....