A question for scientifically based-atheists from an agnostic...?

Question

I would consider my own views closer to athiesm than mono/polyethism, as the concept of organized religion is a paradox in my view. I know you base your belief on the fact that there is no scientific evidence of a 'God,' but what if there was an advancement in superstring theory, one that proved undeniably that something had to have created all that we know? would you require more proof? Or would you consider current research to be wrong?

Bear in mind, I did not specify that it had to be a god, simply that something had to have started the cycle. Would you still oppose it, or not care at all about it, if it didn't even know you existed?

Answer 1

Science is not an unchanged body of knowledge, current research is ALWAYS wrong, if new evidence turns up then sure.

However having said that, what I know about the universe at the moment suggests the scenario you envisage is extremely unlikely.

Answer 2

The fact that "something" had to have started everything doesn't suggest evidence of an omnipotent, omniscient, invisible supernatural being. I would think more evidence would be in order at that point.

I suggest reading Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis" if you haven't already for some discussion of how the universe already demonstrates that no god resembling an Abrahamic or Western-style god exists...its only flaw is that he goes through the proofs much to superficially but it's a good overview. Also see the link below, especially the part about the universe.

It's marginally possible that a god exists but to me, the naked facts of the universe point against it. There would have to be some extraordinary evidence to stack up against that. I'm not saying it's not possible, but it doesn't seem likely.

Answer 3

God, as typically understood, is not open to observation or falsification, and his existence does not make testable predictions. He is not a proper entity of science. A scientist can believe in him at home, but must put aside that mindset at work as he studies the physical universe.

With that said, it's an equivocation on the word "create" that make the matter complex.

To create, in terms of consciously plan out a unverse, set it up, and "make it run," is one thing that Theists credit their god with. I don't see how advancement in science could ever postulate such a thing.

To create, in terms of "being the backbone of all existence," then you're merely saying that everything in the universe is made of the same elementary stuff, which is nothing knew for scientifically-based people, whether you're talking about strings, elementary particles, or field values. Physical monism is an assumption of science.

To create, in terms of "one singular event that affected the outcome of the universe," again, you're just talking about a nonconscious occurrence. The fact that it had causal influence as a physical factor might be cosmologically interesting, but still does not imply deity-hood by itself. If things had been any different, we wouldn't be here to think about it.

Answer 4

If, finally, some real, concrete proof of divine intervention in the universe emerged I'd be delighted. On a subject like this, though, it would have to be a doozy. There's some highly devout physicist who claims to have just that, but he's just crowbarring the Trinity - of all things - in the Big bang singularity.

But something solid - wouldn't that be interesting!

It's worth noting that so far - in all the things we've discovered delving into the smallest and the largest in the universe - not one jot, not one tiddle has emerged that pointed to ANYTHING supernatural. You'da thought a deity would have left a few bits of magic around, but no. It all hangs together in magnificent mundanity.

CD

Answer 5

We are poor creatures subject to Time, which leads us to many mistakes. We are used to see cause and effect in sequence. But an eternal being such as God is not subject to Time, therefore cause and effect for Him are simultaneous.

Also, the concept of a God "needing something" with an "urge" to create the universe, does not make much sense to me.

That's why I can't think of the Creation as an "event" but something intrinsic in the nature of God, that we perceive "in sequence" as a process going on from before the Big Bang and that will probably go on forever.

Of course, this is just philosophic speculation subject to error, because of the limits of the human brain and experience.

Answer 6

I'm a believer in God and Jesus, but why would Super String Theory require a creator!

What have strings got to do with that!

From a SCIENCE view point!

I mean STRING theory has NOTHING to do with the issue of SERENDIPTY vs CREATION

Strings can be the building block of God or they can just occur

Both are possible

I don't get the connection.

And I'm a believer

Is there something about Super Strings I am not aware of!

Answer 7

but what if there was an advancement in superstring theory, one that proved undeniably that something had to have created all that we know? would you require more proof?
"Answer" No. If it were as you say, undeniably, then that would be all the proof I need.

Answer 8

Sure, but I can't even picture what that would be. I mean it would have to be something that pointed directly to a creator, not something that opened a big door of unknown.

And actually there is a more recent version called M Theory.

Answer 9

I'm always open to more data. I tend to be the kind of guy that tries very hard to let the data speak for themselves. But, you can bet your bottom dollar that I'd be looking up as many theoretical physics professors as I could and would want to chat about this finding.

Answer 10

I would accept that is a consideration and a concept 'they' could later prove correct or no, but either way, the Christian version of God is still contradictory and unable to exist.