Databyter;3300864]Interesting comments patriot. I had a few thoughts about what you said.
Carroll is not one of those who suggest that time does not exist. He falls into the category of analyzing how it works, and tries to answer some of the questions you posed.
Hi Databyter. Say, I wasn't responding to Carroll in this paragraph. I was just addressing some previous comments about the non-existence of time. As you stated, Carroll seems to be ok with it's existence and I have no qualms with his scientific pondering and speculation. Actually, I think it pretty neat.
Einstein's theories in a nutshell show that in fact energy is matter and vica-versa, and that time was a regulating factor in the equation. Matter came from energy after the big bang, but the big bang wasn't the beginning, it was just part of a cycle (according to Carroll). I've always thought it was cyclical myself. It's small minded to conclude that there was nothing before what we can't postulate.
I'm not sure how this ties in directly with what I stated but that's ok, I'll just respond the best that I can.
Again, I have no problem with Carroll's work perhaps some day we'll have better information or even some evidence that the universe/s spawned from a cyclical action but right now we have little data to go from. I think you may be misunderstanding if you think that I believe there was "nothing before what we can't postulate." My point is that at one time the physical universe came into existence, if it's just a cyclical branch of something larger, say a multiverse, that too began to exist at some point and something had to cause it. As I stated earlier, perhaps the multiverse is part of something even larger, even a gigaverse. Install the amount of tier-ing that you see fit but at last, something doesn't come from nothing and at some point something was responsible for the universe / multiverse / gigaverse and the energy which was set free in it.
You literally are cosmic dust, there was no carbon until many suns burned long enough to create enough of it to form planets and eventually life. So, we are all literally star dust. I don't know why you would think you have no value just because your body is composed of carbon.
Of course we're cosmic dust my friend but you're missing the larger point. If I'm
simply cosmic dust, if I'm
only cosmic dust, if I'm
nothing else but cosmic dust, then who or what assigns value to me. If the world is purely naturalistic then the value or preciousness of life is an illusion. Like dirt, man would have no value intrinsic value by nature or purely physical forces. In other words it takes a conscienceness to give value to something. Yes, I may be valuable to my family and friends now but what if I had none left, am I still valuable? Beyond that the Bill of Rights gives me value but what if I lived in Nigeria, what then assigns me value, the earth perhaps? See where this is going? My point is that we're not simply dust. We're constructed of dust but something else has to be added or things like truth, value & morality can't logically be traced to finality. One could make a pragmatic assertion about it but not a logical argument for it.
The question of God is important, but understanding the natural universe as you yourself has said only brings you closer to whatever is truth to you. Furthermore, who is to say that your idea of God doesn't use these cosmic tools. As far as whats more likely believable, the idea of God making Physics more simple to our small minds by saying, "I just created all this stuff" is only simple if you don't think about where God came from.
Well, I never suggested that discovery of the natural universe brings me closer to "my truth." Truth is truth, not something subjective. Things are either true or they are not. Discovery of the natural universe is fantastic interesting and important. I wasn't trying to say that it wasn't and I don't think that I did. What I did do was ask the question of how discoveries or speculation about the natural world tie into what we believe in our worldview. With regards to a creator using cosmic tools, well of course! I never thought otherwise. This is also a great time to remind that tools have a maker as well.
I have a sense of the metaphysical, but I get the sense that you are defending values that are not under attack by this theory.
If you got the sense that I was "defending" rather than just talking, then I'm not sure what to say. I never responded directly or quoted anyone, I was just asking myself a natural progression of questions and writing about them. I could also logically ask why is it that you're in defense against my pondering, right?
I have never understood why people think that science precludes the existance of a spiritual realm. We can have both, and they are in agreement, even if it's hard to see it.
If you responding to me specifically, I think that you've misunderstood my point of view. If that's a general comment, then I couldn't agree with you more. :thumbsup:
I have always thought that science and the metaphysical are the same.
It's neat that "you always thought" this but I must point out that most of the science community would be in disagreement with you. As far as my own thoughts to your statement I may agree or I may not. It all depends on what you mean by science and metaphysical. Yes, they're the same in that they're all derived from the same source, but many also believe that a miracles can occur through the metaphysical, an idea that mainstream science would reject.
and any perception that they are at odds with each other is only due to ones lack of perception in either of the two areas.
Again, it depends on what precisely you mean. If you ask mainstream science, it's not due to a lack of perception. The "at odds" happens because science in its true form is observational. If they can't observe something or its effects then it doesn't exist.
Scientific exploration into the mysteries of life should only re-enforce all of the values that you are defending and illuminating.
Censuring science in the name of morality has been attempted many times throughout history by good and honorable men who in their ignorance were foolish and shortsighted, because censuring the mysteries of creation, as if it could not defend itself with it's own truths, or did not hold value and truth, is unnecessary and immoral in itself (and usually badly botched and counter-productive).
Science cannot replace spirituality or morality, it is only a tool to reach logical conclusions in the natural world. The natural world, as you said, is the book of life.
What you've said is partially true but it's only one side of the coin. The other side of the coin is the fact that many of the scientists who broke the mold, so to speak, and pushed the world into an enlightened age were deists. Bacon, Galilei, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, Boyle, Faraday, Kelvin and Pasteur are but a small group who all believed in a deity. So, science doesn't have to be at odds with spirituality but in this day and age that's often case whether it makes sense or not. I especially agree with your last paragraph as well.
