2
2
0
I've seen a number of religious posts here and couldn't help but follow up. I'm neither theist nor atheist, I just follow the data. But this sounds more reasonable to me than stoning girls for not being a virgin:
"If the new line of research is correct, then the story of time’s arrow begins with the quantum mechanical idea that, deep down, nature is inherently uncertain. An elementary particle lacks definite physical properties and is defined only by probabilities of being in various states."
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140416-times-arrow-traced-to-quantum-source/
"If the new line of research is correct, then the story of time’s arrow begins with the quantum mechanical idea that, deep down, nature is inherently uncertain. An elementary particle lacks definite physical properties and is defined only by probabilities of being in various states."
http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140416-times-arrow-traced-to-quantum-source/
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 4
6
6
0
Sir
I have a Bachelor of Science. I am also a woman of faith. I sincerely appreciate double-blind, peer reviewed research however I also believe in the Christian God.
I don't discredit anything written in the article per se because no bonafide scientist would discredit a theory without proper research.
However I must say as far as logical reasoning goes, this definitely comes across to me as reasonable as stoning girls for not being virgins. I only say that because theories are backed by science AND faith. It's just not faith in a deity. I consider both to be extreme albeit this theory is interesting.
I have a Bachelor of Science. I am also a woman of faith. I sincerely appreciate double-blind, peer reviewed research however I also believe in the Christian God.
I don't discredit anything written in the article per se because no bonafide scientist would discredit a theory without proper research.
However I must say as far as logical reasoning goes, this definitely comes across to me as reasonable as stoning girls for not being virgins. I only say that because theories are backed by science AND faith. It's just not faith in a deity. I consider both to be extreme albeit this theory is interesting.
(6)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
Why couldn't this be just another manifestation of God? I firmly believe that if (to paraphrase what we Christians say) "God is all powerful, all knowing, and all seeing", then there is absolutely no reason he couldn't have created everything from quantum entanglement, to evolution, to the Big Bang. In fact, why wouldn't He (She?, It? I personally don't believe God has any gender that we could ever hope to identify in every sense of the word).
(2)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
SSG Woods, I have my issues with organized religion, however, there is simply too much majesty and order in the universe for it to be incidental. This is Einstein's god, found in the universe's laws and order... not necessarily something sentient in the since that we think, but something manifest in the subatomic quantum world where everything we think we know goes out the window.
(3)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
Oh trust me, I have a fiery passion similar to the Apostle Paul when it comes to the contemporary Sadducees and Pharisees of today's organized religion.
I find it interesting how new discoveries in faith, religion and/or science makes "everything we think we know go out the window."
Throw time in there as well for that matter! When I was 19 I was absolute certain I knew everything and 10 years later, I am absolutely certain I don't know anything lol.
I find it interesting how new discoveries in faith, religion and/or science makes "everything we think we know go out the window."
Throw time in there as well for that matter! When I was 19 I was absolute certain I knew everything and 10 years later, I am absolutely certain I don't know anything lol.
(3)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
If there is a God, science is the way to truly understand him. Carl Sagan once said - and this won't be exact - that we are the universe looking back at itself.
(3)
(0)
2
2
0
Sir,
It seems that after the industrial revolution there was a move away from philosophical thought but with the advent of more recent science including quantum theory the line between science and philosophy/religion are beginning to blur.
It seems that after the industrial revolution there was a move away from philosophical thought but with the advent of more recent science including quantum theory the line between science and philosophy/religion are beginning to blur.
(2)
(0)
SSG Kevin McCulley
I think entirely too much.. I was warned about it in Disney's Beauty and the Beast. A dangerous pastime indeed.
(1)
(0)
SSG V. Michelle Woods
I disagree SSG McCulley. I actually found your thoughts to be complex yet intriguing. The danger comes from those who don't think enough ;)
(1)
(0)
LCpl Steve Wininger
I am no science major, but the science classes I have taken solidified my faith in God as the creator of the universe.
I agree SSG Woods. Not thinking enough is dangerous. Before modern philosophy, most philosophers were scientists and mathematicians. They put much thought into their theories.
I believe there needs to be more of a philosophical approach to science. Too many rely on computer models based on inconclusive data, and not enough on serious thought.
I agree SSG Woods. Not thinking enough is dangerous. Before modern philosophy, most philosophers were scientists and mathematicians. They put much thought into their theories.
I believe there needs to be more of a philosophical approach to science. Too many rely on computer models based on inconclusive data, and not enough on serious thought.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SSG Woods - why do you think scientists are trying to "disprove" God? All science does is describe how the universe works. Who or what is behind that never even comes into question. I can tell you that evolution is real because there's empirical evidence to support that claim, but any higher meaning you want to ascribe to that (or deny based on that) is wholly up to you. Science simply describes how things work, the why is completely up to personal beliefs.
(0)
(0)
1
1
0
And why I've always said the science and poetry are two sides of the same explanation:
When two particles interact, they can no longer even be described by their own, independently evolving probabilities, called “pure states.” Instead, they become entangled components of a more complicated probability distribution that describes both particles together.
When two particles interact, they can no longer even be described by their own, independently evolving probabilities, called “pure states.” Instead, they become entangled components of a more complicated probability distribution that describes both particles together.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google