mathematics...

[anarres]

Originally posted by Zcylen
I thinnk its precisly the opposite.
looks, few centuries ago, mankind belived the earth was flat and creation was in year 4004 BC, those beliefs were because of the religion.
Only when people started thinking in a separate way, the true was discovered.

some belived all things were created by God in the very beginning, but after studying the universe mathematically, and after the Big Bang, we see there was no God there to trigger the beginning of the universe.

I think math and logics are the key to know about mankind origin and not the religion or any other thing.

You talk about absolute truth being attainable. Nothing could be further from understanding what is out there. I am personally not a believer in God in the way established religions use the concept, but that is not to say I have ruled out the possibility of a greater consciousness existing.

My point is that you have to believe in nothing before you can understand anything. If you take a subjective standpoint and say it is objectively true (as you have done), then how can you know that you are right? Your beliefs are not mine, so who is to say you are objectively true? Seriously, learn to observe instead of evaluate and everything becomes alot easier to justify.

yeah, Im Roman Catholic, but religion and science are opposite things, never mix them or you'll end beliving the perfect human can be made and will start clonning things.

OK, that's just weird. The very fact that you separate your belief in an established religion and your belief in the 'no-God big-bang' theory is a contradiction. Maybe you can explain this some more?

 

[Zcylen]

Originally posted by anarres

then how can you know that you are right? Your beliefs are not mine, so who is to say you are objectively true?

OK, that's just weird. The very fact that you separate your belief in an established religion and your belief in the 'no-God big-bang' theory is a contradiction. Maybe you can explain this some more?

I agree, your beliefs arent either mine but Im not saying I have the true in my hands, actually no one has it.
Im not saying "hey, this is the way! follow me!"
Im trying to be objective, I know all af us has a different way to see life, God and the universe.
and thats the way I see it.I think with math and logics you can find reasons, whys, origines, facts.
with god you can find faith, but with faith you can find nothing.
e.g. can you find a black hole with faith? or can you find the cure for cancer with faith?
in many of the cases you need facts, not untangible things like faith.

I just consider that mathematics are the key to discover everything out there.

and yes, its a contradiction.but am aware of that.people use to have faith when everything else is lost.
I do belive in God but not too much I belive more in Hagia Sophia.

 

[GenMarshall]

Take a look at Quantum Atomic Theroy. Its Atoms being represented in a mathmatical forum .

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by anarres

OK, that's just weird. The very fact that you separate your belief in an established religion and your belief in the 'no-God big-bang' theory is a contradiction. Maybe you can explain this some more?

I am a physicist and I'm not a religious person, at least not in the traditional sense and I can tell you thatthe big bang doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.
And just for curiosity, I had a professor who was both a physicist and a catholic priest. He gave us lectures on history and epistemology of sciences and physics in particular, but I think his field was particle physics. In the week he workeed as physicist, conducting his research and at Sundays he was in his church. No conflicts at all.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by MCdread
I am a physicist and I'm not a religious person, at least not in the traditional sense and I can tell you thatthe big bang doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

Well, I'm also not a religous person in the traditional sense, and I also agree that the big bang theory doesn't prove that God doesn't exist.

If you re-read the post you will see that I connected the two ideas because I was saying it in reference to Zcylen, who himself inferred it.

 

[Quokka]

I had to say no. Its the intangibles that swayed me, love, hate, morality, hope, religion and faith. How do you describe those mathematically (or at all)?

Would you want maths to be able to describe everything? If it could, what would be the point of anything? Everyone would know what was going to happen. It would mean everything is predetermined.

So for humanities sake I hope that not everything can be determined mathematically, after all curiosity is the driving force behind the human race.

 

[col]

Originally posted by MCdread


I
And just for curiosity, I had a professor who was both a physicist and a catholic priest. He gave us lectures on history and epistemology of sciences and physics in particular, but I think his field was particle physics. In the week he workeed as physicist, conducting his research and at Sundays he was in his church. No conflicts at all.

I'll bet that was John Polkinghorne - and his beliefs arent exactly main stream in either theology or physics.

 

[MCdread]

Originally posted by col


I'll bet that was John Polkinghorne - and his beliefs arent exactly main stream in either theology or physics.

No, he was a portuguese professor. You probably never heard of him. But to tell you the truth, he wasn't one of my favourites at all.

@anarres: you are right, I should have payed more atention to Zcylen's previous post. My mistake...

 

[Zcylen]

of course Quokka, those things cant be measured by mathematics, those are feelings.
we are talking about facts, distances, evolution.

i wonder if I say my g/f " oh, my love is equal to L² "

 

[col]

Originally posted by MCdread


No, he was a portuguese professor. You probably never heard of him. But to tell you the truth, he wasn't one of my favourites at all.

Oh Ok. Polkinghorne was a professor at Cambridge, specialising in particle Physics who gave it up to become ordained. Now a theology specialist talking about whether physics and god are compatible beliefs. Hes interesting but I dont agree with him!

 

[Quokka]

If you are only talking about the Physical Universe , then I don't know yet. At the moment no is the obvious answer but the new work in SuperString and M-Theory is very interesting but still in its infancy. They are certainly heading towards a greater understanding of the universe.
But the Universe is expanding and evolving so it'll always be a catch up race. I don't think there'll ever be convergence in that regard but we may be able descride everything that we have discovered up to a point.
How would we know if we have discovered everything anyway?