"Truth is a foreign concept to the human mind."

[Robert Z]

I wouldn't take this physics and try to make any big philosophical extrapolation about Truth with a capital T. The fact that space and time is wrapped up together still just tells you how to calculate and estimate parameters. And in general relativity, what remains definite is when two different people/objects meet, touch, collide, and interact. If an event happens, then all the space and time frames have to line up for it. If 2 events are displaced in time or space, then the order and all that stuff is a matter of where you're sitting, but events, in the theory, an event is accounted for from all perspectives somehow.

 

 

 

How does that all speak to the basic point - there are no preferred observers in the inertial frame. Is most certainly does speak to the notion of absolute truth. That was the point of Einstein's famous statement.

 

 

And yes, if you define a preferred reference frame, then you can arbitrarily declare that to be THE truth.

[Robert Z]

Thanks for watching. What is your opinion of Dr. Ross (astrophysicist) opinion that appeal to multi-verse is a version of the gambler's fallacy?

 

It depends entirely on why one is making that appeal. If a theory predicts other universes, or if that explanation or hypothesis is consistent with what we know to be true, then it isn't the gambler's fallacy.

 

We don't really seek truth in physics. We seek models that work - that predict the correct results of experiments that have outcomes critical to the accuracy of that model. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful theory in the history of science. It correctly predicts more than all other theories combined and it has never been wrong. But the ramifications of QM are strange. And there is reason to believe that one of these highly exotic theories might be correct. I completely reject the idea that physicists make such cheesy bets as is suggested by this person. These strange models emerged from the fantastically strange results that are seen in the lab, as is indicated in your own link..

 

 

Second, the current batch of multiverse models gained popularity primarily because they arose from investigations of other phenomena. Scientists did not simply invent a multiverse in order to explain away the beginning of the universe or to account for its life-friendly fine-tuning. The most popular multiverse model (a level II bubble multiverse filled with level I universes) arises from efforts to find an explanation for how inflation works. Granted the multiverse scenario arises after huge extrapolations of well-tested physical models, but most versions of inflation that produce a universe that looks like ours also produce a multiverse.

I have watched many of Kaku's shows. I think he is more of a sensationalist and futurist (no offense).

He is considered a sensationalists but his paper was a landmark paper, and String Theory, or now M-Theory, or Brane Theory, do not depend on one's personal impressions of Dr. Kaku. And I did post a link to experimental evidence that seems to support the ideas of alternate universes.

 

BTW, I agree that multiverse wasn't created to "explain away" fine-tuning. I think the show is trying to appeal to a non-scientific audience by in large. Here is an updated article from Ross's website:

I think what he said was incredibly misleading. Never once did he clarify that the interviewers references to evolution were completely out of context.

 

Multiverse Musings: Is It Testable? | Today's New Reason to Believe

 

 

That isn't the same person. And he is talking about whether certain theories can ever be properly tested. That doesn't make the idea any less valid, it only means that if accurate, it becomes difficult to provide overwhelming scientific evidence to support that hypothesis, which is required for any theory in science. If you can never test it then it doesn't count as a scientific theory.

 

"Did these values happen by chance, or will a complete theory of physics predict their values, or were they somehow forced by the nature of the big bang for reasons that we just don't understand yet?"

 

Could any of those reasons be supernatural?

One of the speculations among non-scientists that come under the heading of "unexplained reasons", is the idea that God made things this way. But since supernatural explanations are outsider of the domain of science, by definition the God explanation cannot be considered without direct scientific evidence to support such a claim. We always assume that the simplest explanation is the best explanation, with all things being equal. And the simplest explanation is that the universe or multiverse make sense without invoking a need for a god. Edited January 26, 2014 by Robert Z

[TheFinalWord]

These strange models emerged from the fantastically strange results that are seen in the lab, as is indicated in your own link..

 

Thank you for the response. The person making that claim is Dr. Hugh Ross, who is a astrophysicist (took classes under Carl Sagan) and youngest director of observations for Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society. So he does have some authority in making these claims. BTW When you say "we seek"...are you a physicists? Or are you a layman (like me)? Just wondering, not trying to question your knowledge-level.

 

He is considered a sensationalists but his paper was a landmark paper, and String Theory, or now M-Theory, or Brane Theory, do not depend on one's personal impressions of Dr. Kaku. And I did post a link to experimental evidence that seems to support the ideas of alternate universes.

 

I am sure in his field he is widely respected. He does have a tendency to venture outside of his field (i.e. climate change) and often his Discovery Channel documentaries come across as sort of a Dr. Oz approach to public health. I get his is trying to have a Hawking effect and bring cosmology to the masses...anyway, your links are great. I appreciate your sharing them.

 

That isn't the same person. And he is talking about whether certain theories can ever be properly tested. That doesn't make the idea any less valid, it only means that if accurate, it becomes difficult to provide overwhelming scientific evidence to support that hypothesis, which is required for any theory in science. If you can never test it then it doesn't count as a scientific theory.

 

Sorry for not explaining. It's the same group: Reasons to Believe, headed by Dr. Hugh Ross. If you want more of an academic debate, this may help: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3j7vYfegaQ

 

One of the speculations among non-scientists that come under the heading of "unexplained reasons", is the idea that God made things this way. But since supernatural explanations are outsider of the domain of science, by definition the God explanation cannot be considered without direct scientific evidence to support such a claim. We always assume that the simplest explanation is the best explanation, with all things being equal. And the simplest explanation is that the universe or multiverse make sense without invoking a need for a god.

 

Yes, I am familiar with Occam razor.

 

ut since supernatural explanations are outsider of the domain of science, by definition the God explanation cannot be considered without direct scientific evidence to support such a claim.

 

Sorry, I am confused what you mean here. Supernatural is outside the realm of science, so we need direct scientific evidence to support a claim about the existence of God? BTW if it's any consolation I think you are probably the most open minded (agnostic?) I have dialogued with on this forum. I appreciate your in-depth responses.

Edited January 26, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[M30USA]

I'd just like to interject and post a video related to my OP. Yoy guys are having a great discussion and I don't mean to end it. Just wanted to share this though:

 

[TheFinalWord]

I'd just like to interject and post a video related to my OP. Yoy guys are having a great discussion and I don't mean to end it. Just wanted to share this though:

 

 

hmmm not to be nit picky He starts off quoting John 14:26...now will the holy spirit teach you and I all things? Or is Jesus talking directly to apostles of Christ in this verse?

 

“All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

 

What they "remembered", was penned and given to us. To me, this is a statement only for the apostles of Christ. None of us have been with Christ during his earthly ministry and Jesus did not directly talk to us. We gain truth from reading the scriptures given to us by the apostles of Christ.

 

But I suppose it depends if you are a Cessationist or Continuationist

 

 

To me, it can be very easy to mistake the Holy Spirit for intuition. Which is why when we receive any spiritual information, we should sift it through scripture to discern what spirit is giving the information. The bible promotes this idea...to test all spiritual messages, to discern what spirit is behind the message. To search ourselves to see whether we are in the faith. What do you think?

 

PS: I get what the video is saying in general...and generally I agree. I do think when a message sounds "off" it is probably b/c we know it contradicts scripture and should flush the idea out, via scripture to confirm or deny. But I do think we need to study scripture and that scripture should be the primary filter for spiritual truth.

PSS: I hope this isn't deviating too much from the OP.

Edited January 27, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[M30USA]

Yes, he actually has a video about how the Holy Spirit is NOT synonymous with intuition.

 

He brought up a point which really got me thinking:

 

If Abraham had the Scriptures we have today and followed them alone, would he still have brought Isaac to the sacrificial altar (as God clearly asked him to do)?

 

No, he would have read that God doesn't command murder. He wouldnt have obeyed God. If he tried, his friends would have stopped him and cited Scripture verses. Yet the Holy Spirit clearly asked him to--at least initially. Regardless of the final result (where God told him to stop), Abraham was obeying the Holy Spirit which, at least to a modern understanding, would contradict Scripture.

 

Even the scribes, who studied scripture day and night, failed to recognize Christ. How is this possible? Because they relied upon Scripture alone and not the Holy Spirit.

Edited January 27, 2014 by M30USA

[TheFinalWord]

Yes, he actually has a video about how the Holy Spirit is NOT synonymous with intuition.

 

He brought up a point which really got me thinking:

 

If Abraham had the Scriptures we have today and followed them alone, would he still have brought Isaac to the sacrificial altar (as God clearly asked him to do)?

 

IMHO, that is a hypothetical that has no direct bearing on us outside of the fact that he is perhaps saying that there are times when we can ignore scripture and go by a different spirit? Is this man basically saying that we need more than the scriptures to know the truth? Maybe we need oral traditions, bells, chalices and all the rest?

 

That is where I think he is actually on more shaky grounds as in the case of saying that the Holy Spirit will teach us all truth. Many Christians do not receive all truth, many will only be saved as by fire. So is that statement returning void to God? No. It was fulfilled in the apostles of Christ.

 

No, he would have read that God doesn't command murder. He wouldnt have obeyed God. If he tried, his friends would have stopped him and cited Scripture verses. Yet the Holy Spirit clearly asked him to--at least initially. Regardless of the final result (where God told him to stop), Abraham was obeying the Holy Spirit which, at least to a modern understanding, would contradict Scripture.

 

Even the scribes, who studied scripture day and night, failed to recognize Christ. How is this possible? Because they relied upon Scripture alone and not the Holy Spirit.

 

Was the spirit given at this time? If not, how can that be a factor? Paul clarifies why they did not accept Christ (Romans 10 and 11), but that can get into a whole other debate.

 

Among the crowd, they did not have all the information about Jesus, which seems to be an issue:

 

"Whoever believes in me, as Scripture has said, rivers of living water will flow from within them.”By this he meant the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were later to receive. Up to that time the Spirit had not been given, since Jesus had not yet been glorified."

On hearing his words, some of the people said, “Surely this man is the Prophet.” Others said, “He is the Messiah.” Still others asked, “How can the Messiah come from Galilee? Does not Scripture say that the Messiah will come from David’s descendants and from Bethlehem, the town where David lived?” Thus the people were divided because of Jesus. Some wanted to seize him, but no one laid a hand on him.

[M30USA]

TFW,

 

Can you identify what the Word of God is?

 

Don't get me wrong. You should know by now that I defend and uphold Scripture constantly, but I've realized it's not enough. The Holy Spirit is what we are to obey.

 

Jesus said, "You study the Scriptures and think that, in them, you possess life..." and went on to say the scriptures point to HIM.

 

Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture doesn't save us. Jesus saves us. Scripture is a reference to make sure we aren't deceived and can test the spirit. But the Holy Spirit is primary; Scripture is secondary.

 

If the Scriptures supersede the Holy Spirit, then you run into all kinds of problems.

 

I'm sure the disciples, especially Paul, could have heard Jesus talking about taking up ones cross and following him even unto death...and said, "What are you talking about Jesus? The scriptures say that the righteous will prosper!"

 

But there was a new covenant. How was this revealed? By the Holy Spirit. This is why, to this day, Jews do not accept Christ. They have the scriptures. But the Holy Spirit has not revealed to them the new covenant.

 

This is also why many modern Christians are deceived. They have scripture. But the Holy Spirit is lacking, so scripture becomes a dead carcass to them and gets interpreted erroneously in all different ways "to their own destruction"--as Paul said.

Edited January 27, 2014 by M30USA

[TheFinalWord]

TFW,

 

Can you identify what the Word of God is?

 

Yes, the Word is Jesus and His Words and Teachings were penned for us by the apostles of Christ. If anyone teaches anything to the contrary of the gospel given by the apostles of Christ, they are accursed according to Paul.

 

Don't get me wrong. You should know by now that I defend and uphold Scripture constantly, but I've realized it's not enough. The Holy Spirit is what we are to obey.

 

Yes, I do think you are a very scriptural person. Some of this is me just challenging b/c we haven't had a good debate in these forums for awhile (the same old atheist threads are rehashes to me )

 

Jesus said, "You study the Scriptures and think that, in them, you possess life..." and went on to say the scriptures point to HIM.

 

I agree 100%.

 

Jesus is the Word of God. Scripture doesn't save us. Jesus saves us. Scripture is a reference to make sure we aren't deceived and can test the spirit.

 

I agree 100% and typed the same response above before reading yours

 

This is just a disagreement of semantics, not a salvation issue. It basically comes down to charismatic vs. reform theology. TBH I am surprised you are breaking from John MacAurthur. Though I am glad in some respects

 

But the Holy Spirit is primary; Scripture is secondary.

 

I think you will need to show me a verse. Also, how are the two really separate? Did not men of God speak as they were moved by the Holy Spirit? 1 Peter 2? What is inspired to you? Can a man's personal convictions, which he claims is from the Holy Spirit, be considered equal or higher than scripture? If it comes down to it, I will take what the apostles wrote above any personal testimony from man. I know where the apostles' message came from. I don't know where yours or anyone else's testimony comes from...I don't even know mine half the time. I can be sitting there and a thought pops into my head. That can be totally random, but I would not even put it on the same level as scripture. If it is a thought that contradicts scripture, to me, that is not from the Holy Spirit.

 

Paul, an apostle—sent not from men nor by a man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father. I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you to live in the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let them be under God’s curse! As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse!

 

If the Scriptures supersede the Holy Spirit, then you run into all kinds of problems.

 

Then there might be a problem...as faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. I think it depends if you think the bible is just words (i.e. tablets of the law) or "living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword"

Edited January 27, 2014 by TheFinalWord

[Eggplant]

How does that all speak to the basic point - there are no preferred observers in the inertial frame. Is most certainly does speak to the notion of absolute truth. That was the point of Einstein's famous statement.

 

 

And yes, if you define a preferred reference frame, then you can arbitrarily declare that to be THE truth.

So you keep in mind that you're in a preferred reference frame. There's an implied "in this reference frame." The truth whatever it may be is consistent with the equations. Look, if you look at a thing from the east, it looks different from how it does from the west. Does that mean the Truth of the thing is relative? No. The whole truth is that it can be looked at from many angles. And so that is you absolute truth -- the whole truth -- the way is it's coordinates are positioned in a 3-D reference frame. And extend that to 4-D and include time, and so the whole truth includes all the perspectives of the space-time coordinate system, which is not Euclidean, it's warped. You can still reduce it all to a single truth. Nothing magical or philosophical.

[Robert Z]

So you keep in mind that you're in a preferred reference frame. There's an implied "in this reference frame." The truth whatever it may be is consistent with the equations. Look, if you look at a thing from the east, it looks different from how it does from the west. Does that mean the Truth of the thing is relative? No. The whole truth is that it can be looked at from many angles. And so that is you absolute truth -- the whole truth -- the way is it's coordinates are positioned in a 3-D reference frame. And extend that to 4-D and include time, and so the whole truth includes all the perspectives of the space-time coordinate system, which is not Euclidean, it's warped. You can still reduce it all to a single truth. Nothing magical or philosophical.

 

 

 

Truth is what we measure.

[Robert Z]

Thank you for the response. The person making that claim is Dr. Hugh Ross, who is a astrophysicist (took classes under Carl Sagan) and youngest director of observations for Vancouver's Royal Astronomical Society. So he does have some authority in making these claims.

 

 

He appears to me to be using his authority to reinforce misleading statements, however that could be the way the editing was handled. My objections have nothing to do with his credentials. False statements are false statements no matter who makes them. My objection was the clear implication that fine tuning refers to evolution, which is total bs. But again, that could be a matter of editing and not source statements. Still, it causes great concern about the motives of the interviewer. It seemed like intentional fraud to me.

 

BTW When you say "we seek"...are you a physicists? Or are you a layman (like me)? Just wondering, not trying to question your knowledge-level.

I am a physicist but no longer work as one. I don't want to get too specific due to privacy concerns.

 

I am sure in his field he is widely respected. He does have a tendency to venture outside of his field (i.e. climate change) and often his Discovery Channel documentaries come across as sort of a Dr. Oz approach to public health. I get his is trying to have a Hawking effect and bring cosmology to the masses...anyway, your links are great. I appreciate your sharing them.

He does venture well into the fringe, but he also does a nice job of giving two-minute reviews of ten year subjects.

 

Sorry, I am confused what you mean here. Supernatural is outside the realm of science, so we need direct scientific evidence to support a claim about the existence of God?

Yes, there is no reason for science to consider the question of a god unless there is direct evidence to support that conjecture. Physics fundamentally assumes that natural processes occur according to natural laws and not divine intervention. While some argue that fine tuning may count as evidence, by no means does it stand as scientific evidence. And even philosophically it is but one of many possible explanations.

 

BTW if it's any consolation I think you are probably the most open minded (agnostic?) I have dialogued with on this forum. I appreciate your in-depth responses.

Heh, thanks. I don't really have any particular beliefs so I have nothing to be defensive about.

[Robert Z]

So you keep in mind that you're in a preferred reference frame. There's an implied "in this reference frame." The truth whatever it may be is consistent with the equations. Look, if you look at a thing from the east, it looks different from how it does from the west. Does that mean the Truth of the thing is relative? No. The whole truth is that it can be looked at from many angles. And so that is you absolute truth -- the whole truth -- the way is it's coordinates are positioned in a 3-D reference frame. And extend that to 4-D and include time, and so the whole truth includes all the perspectives of the space-time coordinate system, which is not Euclidean, it's warped. You can still reduce it all to a single truth. Nothing magical or philosophical.

 

Truth is what we measure.

 

 

To put it another way, there is no observer who is not in a preferred reference frame. There is no "god frame". That is purely a mathematical abstraction. It is a concept resulting from a model that explains the measurements of all observers.

[mukkrakker]

There is no truth in religious belief, only faith, which is anathema to reality, and therefore to truth. QED.

[M30USA]

There is no truth in religious belief, only faith, which is anathema to reality, and therefore to truth. QED.

 

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

[mukkrakker]

How much wood would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood?

 

You just proved my point. Thanks.

[M30USA]

TFW,

 

I'm not ignoring your post. I'll respond soon.

[pureinheart]

I'd just like to interject and post a video related to my OP. Yoy guys are having a great discussion and I don't mean to end it. Just wanted to share this though:

 

 

hmmm not to be nit picky He starts off quoting John 14:26...now will the holy spirit teach you and I all things? Or is Jesus talking directly to apostles of Christ in this verse?

 

“All this I have spoken while still with you. But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

 

What they "remembered", was penned and given to us. To me, this is a statement only for the apostles of Christ. None of us have been with Christ during his earthly ministry and Jesus did not directly talk to us. We gain truth from reading the scriptures given to us by the apostles of Christ.

 

But I suppose it depends if you are a Cessationist or Continuationist

 

 

To me, it can be very easy to mistake the Holy Spirit for intuition. Which is why when we receive any spiritual information, we should sift it through scripture to discern what spirit is giving the information. The bible promotes this idea...to test all spiritual messages, to discern what spirit is behind the message. To search ourselves to see whether we are in the faith. What do you think?

 

PS: I get what the video is saying in general...and generally I agree. I do think when a message sounds "off" it is probably b/c we know it contradicts scripture and should flush the idea out, via scripture to confirm or deny. But I do think we need to study scripture and that scripture should be the primary filter for spiritual truth.

PSS: I hope this isn't deviating too much from the OP.

 

LOL, have to say a good majority of the discussion is wayyyyy over my head. IMO truth is truth and a lie a lie- there is absolute truth as there is absolute lack thereof.

 

Hey, I wanted to ask you guys what you think. I agree with M30's link because I've experienced it, although there have been people through the Holy Spirit/God/Jesus that have spoken absolute truth.

 

Would this be a discernment issue more than anything?

 

To TFW's link …going by the title, based on Scripture- No

Edited January 27, 2014 by pureinheart

[jba10582]

Mathematical axioms are the basis of all that follows in math and are unprovable but "self evident truths".

 

 

 

0+1 = 0+1

I am = I am

[mukkrakker]

Mathematical axioms are the basis of all that follows in math and are unprovable but "self evident truths".

0+1 = 0+1

I am = I am

 

That was so far over my head i didn't even hear the roar of the rocket boosters.

[jba10582]

meant to be simple

 

higher proofs of mathematics used to aid in advanced theories at their root axioms, are "self evident truth" as a start point.

[TheFinalWord]

He appears to me to be using his authority to reinforce misleading statements, however that could be the way the editing was handled. My objections have nothing to do with his credentials. False statements are false statements no matter who makes them. My objection was the clear implication that fine tuning refers to evolution, which is total bs. But again, that could be a matter of editing and not source statements. Still, it causes great concern about the motives of the interviewer. It seemed like intentional fraud to me..

 

I see what you mean. I think there is a mix-up in the people in the vid. The host is John Ankerburg. I don't think Hugh Ross made that statement. This is Hugh Ross:

 

Testimony Dr Hugh Ross - YouTube

 

You might like some of his stuff. He is into the UFO stuff you and M30 dialog about.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D8vGzOProVY

 

TFW,

 

I'm not ignoring your post. I'll respond soon.

 

No problem bro. I was feeling ornery last night. Don't feel like you have to reply

[Eggplant]

Truth is what we measure.

I have never though the word truth meant perception or measurement. But if you go back to your original post about truth being relative and replace the word truth with measurement, then I agree with you.

[skydiveaddict]

Lately I have been thinking about the idea that truth, itself, is not even comprehendible by the natural human mind.

 

That's what Pontius Pilate's excuse was as well.

[M30USA]

That's what Pontius Pilate's excuse was as well.

 

Excuse? I don't follow.

 

Maybe you didn't see the phrase "natural mind"? As in the verse:

 

"The person without the [Holy] Spirit does not accept the things that come from the [Holy] Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the [Holy] Spirit." (1 Corinthians 2:14 NIV)