Hail

For the most part religion says everything came from one source. Science speaks of everything being a part of a unified field. Spirituality says have faith in that, science says lets proove that but would we try to prove it if we didn't believe it?

Marduk

Not really, religion claims this 'source' exists outside itself and has a personality and wants you to wear a silly hat.

galiel

Why the desperation for validation from science?

Not that what you cite is real science.

"Unified field theory" does not speak about "everything being part of a unified field." The "field" in "unified field theory" mediate interactions between separate objects. They are a way of explaining "forces".

"Unified" or "grand" theories are about finding a single theoretical framework for the various theories about the known fundamental forces and elementary particles. Great strides have been made in this area, combining previously separate field theories, although gravity, most significantly, has so far eluded attempts at being folded into a unified explanatory framework.

Most researchers believe that it is only a matter of time before such a unified theory emerges, rather than some fundamental property of the universe that would prevent us from comprehending it.

The latest attempts to unify relativity and quantum physics, such as that by physicist Fotini Markapoulou Kalamara, begin to envision universe as actually a set of geometric relationships whose unteractions create not just forces but matter as well. (Interestingly, this is similar to what R. Buckminster Fuller posited with his "Synergetics" unified theory decades ago).

Just FYI (not that facts ever are allowed to get in the way of propaganda), several contemporary hypotheses of cosmology, including the one I mentioned above, allow for the universe to be self-generating, without the need for external causation. In other words, no god needed.

In science, any hypothesis must be verified by empirical evidence, besides being peer reviewed and subject to extensive review and analysis, before it is referred to as a "theory".

Bottom line: despite all the money made by book authors shilling hip, pseudo-scientific new age-y attempts to find analogous commonalities between science and religious dogma, science is science, faith is faith, and never the twain shall meet.

By the way, "science" doesn't say anything about anything. Within individual disciplines, scientists make certain provable hypotheses. "science" is not an entity, has no holy book or priesthood that imposes its ideology on its followers, nor is there a single "spokesperson" for "science".

Hail

But are you not saying that scientists think that there is this commonality amonst everything. I know there is no one podium where the king of science speaks from and I'm not tryiing to imply that. This is also the premis that religions work on. I'm not prfessing to be a super scientist so you need't try to belittle my effot of explaining what I am pointing to. It is with regard to the idea that religion is bulit on this idea of everything being from one thing. I'm pointing to the fact that confident strides have and are being made in scientific research with that same idea.

galiel

I am wearing blue. BB King plays the blues.

CLEARLY jazz improvisers and the garment industry are talking about the same thing. Ooooooh. Cosmic.

Hail

So you are saying you don't see how those ideas could be the same? fair enough. I wonder if your're insinuating that the cosmos are somehow weird though. Oh well that's just the way I see it until someone can expand on some otherwise.

Butters

Hail,
I you had said "Eastern Religions" claim that everything is one, you would've been right.
You should read Fritjof Capra's "The Tao of Physics. He claims that the experinces related by Hindus, Taoist's, Zen Buddhist's, etc. mirror what we are now seeing in physic's.
And while many scientists are working on a Grand Unified Field Thoery(GUT), we are certinaly not far enough along to even start on a Theory Of Everything(TOE, IMHO.

galiel

If you cite science, please adhere to the rules of scientific evidence. If you assert that "science" says X, please present your evidence. I have presented plenty of evidence refuting your assertion.

Otherwise, you are just mouthing dogma. That is SOP for religion. That is why science and religion are irreconcilable.

Hail

And while many scientists are working on a Grand Unified Field Thoery(GUT),

Well i'm not surprised that you have heard of this research or theory or whathaveyou. I'm lookig at the question would scientists be spending time with it if they didn't believe it is so. And a far as I remember in the way christianity said it is : in th e begining the was nothign but darkness on the face of the deep, I'm shure there are other ways of saying it but to me that means the same sort of thing. I f I am to present documentation that they are researching this then this forum is too formal for me besides how can you say they are not studying this. Don't you know about it?

galiel

Hail, you are simply not reading my responses to you.

The fact that scientists are working on unified field theories does not mean that
I explained to you what the "field" in "unified field theory" refers to. read my first response.

I am happy for you, and if all you are saying is "that is what I believe, don't challenge me on it," then you are in good theistic company on this board and I won't bother to try to have a discussion with you.

However, cosmologists are most certainly *not* saying that "in the begining there was nothing but darkness on the face of the deep", either in analogous scientific terms or any other. If you can't be bothered to actually read--in a scientific journal, for example--directly about the theories you seem to misunderstand, then what possible basis is their for debate?

Simply asserting the same thing over and over without responding to any of the points presented to you is not the way it works here. This is not church.