EarthGirl

I'm sorry. I should have been more clear about how QM is an argument that God does not exist. I have heard that it negates the possibility of a God because nothing can indeed, come from nothing.

Again, I haven't a clue about this. I'm only stating what I have read. I'm truly out of my element here. I am completely science challanged!

Wounded King

I'm sure he meant what scientific Knowledge, Yguy.

yguy

And if there is a God, knowledge of His existence would not qualify as scientific knowledge because...?

eh

In terms of helping us understand the world, no. It seems the physical universe is self sufficient regardless of whether or not it was created. So when attempting to find out how nature works, the notion of a creator does not appear to help us in any way with that.

Take quantum gravity, for example. How would belief in God change the attempt of physicists to understand space and time at a fundemental level? Unless you want to claim God actually intervenes to make gravity work, there won't seem to be any different. But to propose a creator God does not actually help explain how that creation works.

Wounded King

Well it would depend on how you came to knowledge of god wouldn't it? So far there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God. Some people believe there are other forms of knowledge through which they 'know' God.

Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge, it depend on the methods of acquiring and verifying that knowledge.

Many scientists might claim a religous knowledge of God, but this might be qualitatively different from their knowledge of molecular biology.

It is quite possible to acknowledge god but still consider him outside the realms of scientific research.

yguy

Perhaps the universe is not as it seems? Ya think?

yguy

If it's true, what does it matter?

Again, here we have an assertion by the scientific mindset of its right to be the arbiter of truth. I question that right.

Sure, if you assume a windup universe which God just left running while he played 18 trillion holes of golf or something. It would be tantamount to acknowledging Him as titular head of the universe, as relevant as Hirohito was after V-J day. Totally non-threatening - and a far cry from His Son, who was very threatening indeed to the powers that be.

Jesse

Wounded King:
Not all knowledge is scientific knowledge, it depend on the methods of acquiring and verifying that knowledge.

yguy:
Again, here we have an assertion by the scientific mindset of its right to be the arbiter of truth. I question that right.

Sounds to me like he's saying exactly the opposite--that the scientific method is not the only source of valid knowledge. For example, it's questionable whether our reconstructions of human history are really an example of knowledge obtained by "science", but that doesn't mean that history is bunk.

Marduk

There is a QM guy from NYU, Asian, can't remember his name, who seems to think QM prooves God somehow, or is that string theory? I forget, never mind.
He pops up on Art Bell's show from time to time, much to the chagrin of his Dept. Head I'm sure.

yguy

Yes, possibly I drew an incorrect inference.

BTW, I responded on the Probability thread, and it shows up in the thread itself, but the board shows yours as the last response.