@Theologian↪TheMadFool
Don't forget: the OP is talking about God as not only infinite, but as completelyunlimited.
Harking back to my previous post, I would say that only that which is limited in at least some respect is capable of offering any explanation at all. That which is completely unlimited can seemingly explain literally anything. It's the absolute antithesis of falsifiable.
So by being equally capable of explaining literally anything, your theory predicts nothing. It has literally no ability to tell you why any particular thing happens, as opposed to any other particular thing.
Why does the sun continue to shine in the sky rather than waft gently down to Earth, offer you a Vienna coffee, and begin discussing logical positivism? The completely unlimited can't tell you.
Zero explanation.
To choose my words a little more carefully so as to avoid the apparent paradox inherent in my previous formulation, in its superficially apparentability to explain literally anything, the completely unlimited actually explains nothing. — Theologian
So, what's the difference between the ToE and God? — TheMadFool
The answer is simple: a scientifically valid ToE makes concrete predictions about what will happen. It successfully explains everything only so long as those predictions are never proven wrong.
I'm reminded of Popper's contrasting of Einstein's theory of relativity with Freud's psychoanalysis. What renders relativity impressive (and scientific) is that it says exactly what will happen. If something different ever happens, the theory will have been proven wrong. Psychoanalysis, by contrast, seems capable of telling some kind of story about events no matter what happens.
The same problem exists with God. Or at least, with many formulations of God. — Theologian
It's odd that the word physical is in the definition, since in physics there are no other phenomena. I have seen it mentioned like this in a variety of places. Not journal articles but still scientists talking.Most people would not then say that we have a theory that "completely explains all physical phenomena in the universe." — Terrapin Station
That's a sweet idea.Maybe it's just included as a courtesy to folks who don't think that there are only physical phenomena? — Terrapin Station
So, what's the difference between the ToE and God? — TheMadFool
Stories of heroes descending to the underworld were not regarded as primarily factual but taught people how to negotiate the obscure regions of the psyche. In the same way, the purpose of a creation myth was therapeutic; before the modern period no sensible person ever thought it gave an accurate account of the origins of life. A cosmology was recited at times of crisis or sickness, when people needed a symbolic influx of the creative energy that had brought something out of nothing. Thus the Genesis myth, a polemic against Babylonian religion, was balm to the bruised spirits of the Israelites who had been defeated and deported by the armies of Nebuchadnezzar during the sixth century BCE. Nobody was required to "believe" it; like most peoples, the Israelites had a number of other mutually-exclusive creation stories and as late as the 16th century, Jews thought nothing of making up a new creation myth that bore no relation to Genesis but spoke more directly to their tragic circumstances at that time.
Above all, myth was a programme of action. When a mythical narrative was symbolically re-enacted, it brought to light within the practitioner something "true" about human life and the way our humanity worked, even if its insights, like those of art, could not be proven rationally. If you did not act upon it, it would remain as incomprehensible and abstract – like the rules of a board game, which seem impossibly convoluted, dull and meaningless until you start to play.
Religious truth is, therefore, a species of practical knowledge. Like swimming, we cannot learn it in the abstract; we have to plunge into the pool and acquire the knack by dedicated practice. Religious doctrines are a product of ritual and ethical observance, and make no sense unless they are accompanied by such spiritual exercises as yoga, prayer, liturgy and a consistently compassionate lifestyle. Skilled practice in these disciplines can lead to intimations of the transcendence we call God, Nirvana, Brahman or Dao. Without such dedicated practice, these concepts remain incoherent, incredible and even absurd 1. — Karen Armstrong
The answer is simple: a scientifically valid ToE makes concrete predictions about what will happen. It successfully explains everything only so long as those predictions are never proven wrong. — Theologian
So, what's the difference between the ToE and God? — TheMadFool
A very common criticism Theism faces is that it explains everything and that somehow actually explains nothing.
So, what's the difference between the ToE and God? — TheMadFool
There's a difference between "God did it" and "using this collection of mathematical models we can correctly predict the behaviour of all physical phenomena". — Michael
The answer is simple: a scientifically valid ToE makes concrete predictions about what will happen. — Theologian
What if mathematical models point to the universe being a creation? That's the way the BB looks at the moment. If this stays the case, we just give up on science and cosmology? Or do we try to use science to investigate the creator?
We have at the moment, a ludicrous situation in cosmology; people are jumping though hoops to find away around the fine tuning argument - far fetched models like multiple universes that flaunt Occam's Razor, common sense, causality etc...
Science should address reality even if it is a reality that atheist scientists find unpalatable. — Devans99
The "God hypothesis" simply asserts that God is the most fundamental level, but provides no insight into how physical structures emerge at ANY level. — Relativist
I grant that (in principle) God could have created the universe 6000 years ago (or 6 seconds ago, for that matter) but this historical explanation doesn't provide a physical explanation of the fundamental structure of material reality: are quantum fields fundamental? Is string theory true? Is there are quantum basis for gravity? It's not enough to "know" that God is the cause of it all - we would like to know exactly what he caused.I think it does. Several incredibly stupid insights: the Earth is 6000 years old, give or take a thousand years. Man ate from the tree of knowledge so he was condemned to have sex. Man has free will. Bad things are attributed to Satan, who was created by god, but somehow or other it's not god's fault ETC. — god must be atheist
It's not enough to "know" that God is the cause of it all - we would like to know exactly what he caused. — Relativist
The facts of the BB are: unnaturally low entropy and an unnatural expansion of space itself. That the expansion is speeding up rather than slowing also seems unnatural. It is also an unnatural singleton (natural events come always come in pluralities - the BB is a suspicious looking singleton). Nature if left to itself finds its way to equilibrium. The BB is the polar opposite of equilibrium. The expansion of space seems engineered to keep us out of a gravitational equilibrium. — Devans99
And it's unnatural to call natural events unnatural. — god must be atheist
I have an idea that it could have been some sort of astrophysical device/bomb that caused the BB. Something computed the requirements for a life supporting universe and designed a device that would achieve that. IMO this is no more far fetched than multiple universes, CCC and the rest of the stuff that passes for cosmology. — Devans99
The only advantage such a theory would have over a basic theory of God is that it makes predictions that turn out to be observed, but again even these predictions could be integrated into a theory of God. — leo
And by definition anything that happens in nature is natural. — god must be atheist
Only the religious, those who believe in the supernatural, those who practice Voodoo, and those who are superstitious can tell you what they don't know, and they are quite eager to do so at any given time. — god must be atheist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.