Should a TOE affect Religions???

[Guille]

DG,

God. The word god is similar to good, but it actually isn't very "good" trying to introduce "god" into the universe and it's creation,(sorry to those who this post sentimentally affects) from the point of view of a scientific TOE, because, as you said, it creates paradoxes. Lets tay with god's definition of "a supreme and perfect master that is infinite" short, but I think effective enough. If we try to include a disprove or a prove of god's existence in a TOE, it would automatically convert the TOE to an only philosfical theory, and this is not good enough because, as you said, a TOE should be physical, mathematical and philosofical. Science is said to be the study of nature. And when nature is said, actually, we say everything. One of the most commonly asked questions a person (or a scientist) asks himself and others, is were we come from? Scientists have been answering that question during time, and know we are at the nearest point yet, to get the right answer. That is because the answer..........will be answered by...........the TOE. If the TOE explain were we come from in a different way any religion does, (most probably it will happen, and jnot only to one religion)then the TOE will be touching the god theme, so know I do think that the TOE HAS to do with god.

But now is when I understand, that what the TOE doesn't touch is god's existence, or better said, should not. Well, A TOE COULD prove god's existence or un-existence if, and only if, it is a MATHEMATICAL or EMPIRICAL prove, but again, god has nothing to do with empirism or mathematics.

[AntonioLao]

Mathematical truth is the highest truth that human can ever achieved with any proof.

Spiritual truth is achieve through faith of any belief that is without any proof.

if God is a mathematician, He will never reveal the final proof. It has to taken by faith alone that a final absolute truth exists. All we can do is die trying to find it.

[Guille]

I agree with most of what you say here. But, I never, never, never, deny any posibilty (and this is hard for me to say and to follow, becuase I am a strong antitheist atheist antiagnostic) and I think that we don't have to be closed to the idea of a mathematical disprove or prove of god's existance.

[AntonioLao]

in the early universe, when stars exploded, the chemical elements were formed and the the combination of these elements forming inorganic and organic molecules but only organic molecules (the inclusion of carbon atom) formed the bases of life from plants to animals.

the chemical structures are based on mathematical principles and somehow the group symmetry of carbon 12 is the basis of life and one form of hydrocarbon, methane, has the structure of a cross analogous to the cross symbol of Christianity. Carbon 14 is radioactive and is destructive to life.

[Guille]

See. Only two numbers, two, make the difference from making life and killing life. Here we come back to the probabilistic and quantized universe.

[AntonioLao]

in quantum mechanics the conjugate variables are momentum and position or energy and time.

[kennap]

some people will still want to meet up on sunday morngings and get dressed up, some people will proabably still want to pray to mecca 5 times a day, some people will keeping making up new theories, etc after we find it. Just like when anything else new is introduced, it will be in varying ways, and of varying importance. The people on this forum will probably have a big celebration, but meanwhile some fanatic somewhere might be calling it the end-times. People may belive the theory but still practice the traditions of their previous religons. Some people will hold on to their religon with such vigor, that they will proably attact (terroist-style) I think it will be discussed at religous places, and proablbly added on to previous 'truths' which a certin religon holds (example book of mormon added to the bible)

[davidgow77]

A theory of everything which deals with religion must be based on a sound, easily understandable and universal definition of the self and which all religious scripture can be interpreted to back up. In this way, reconcilliation between Judaism, Christianity and Islam, as well as Buddhism etc etc will be possible because the shift will be away from people attempting to define God (and thus their purpose) and towards defining their own self, and thus their purpose.

I'm writing an article on this at the moment, which will be in the TOE library soon.

DG

[Fredrick]

I would like to join this discussion by first stating that I am not a believer - not to be confused with an atheist because an atheist is still a believer (who believes that there is no god). Yet I think I can add some juice to this discussion because there is way too much agreement in this thread.

There are two versions of religion that are absolutely incompatible with each other. On the one side there are the monotheistic religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) believing in the existence of a single god, and on the other side are the polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Greek, Egyptian, Norse, etc), with believing there cannot be a single god, but that there are gods nevertheless. Atheism of course would fall in a separate category of belief.

A TOE may definitively change the religious way of thinking of a person, especially if that TOE is not in concordance with the specific belief of that person. If you are a Christian for instance and read about a TOE based on the absence of unification that the whole world accepts, it may or may not immediately alter your belief, but it would create a discrepancy between the material world and your religious world. Currently these two platforms of matter and religion are considered compatible in Christianity. Christianity may start to lose members when a single unified platform is considered unnatural.

Beliefs based on polytheism would gain importance when their beliefs are more in sync with science if science accepts that a unified field of forces is not possible.

Such a TOE exists already, and according to me is the basis of polytheism. For me it wasn't difficult to (re-)create such a TOE either, where there is no unified field (only four forces), especially not after finding some mathematical evidence.

Have a look, but a tiny warning here; if you are a believer that a TOE will exist based on a unified field of forces - or that there is a single god - you will most likely not accept my findings, and declare the information as not important. http://www.pentapublishing.com

Why will you not accept it if you believe in a singular platform? Exactly for the same reasons why people who believe in a single god find the idea of many gods preposterous, and vice versa it is just as difficult. It is very difficult to overcome the structure of one's own beliefs.

[davidgow77]

There are two versions of religion that are absolutely incompatible with each other. On the one side there are the monotheistic religions (Islam, Judaism, Christianity) believing in the existence of a single god, and on the other side are the polytheistic religions (Hinduism, Greek, Egyptian, Norse, etc), with believing there cannot be a single god, but that there are gods nevertheless. Atheism of course would fall in a separate category of belief.

I think that your assertion of the fundamentalism of nothing is right on the money, and this is something that I always bear in mind when looking at religion, science and philosophy. I do however disagree that beliefs in polytheism are incompatible with the dogma and structure of monotheism. Monotheism asserts that there is only one God based solely upon the notion that there can only be one creation. Thus the monotheistic God is the metaphysical creator, which creates the universe from nothing (the arguement here should be bolstered by the view that everything must come from nothing in order for there to be an actual creation). Polytheistic faiths tend to have only one God, or a supreme God (like Zeus) who is responsible for creation. The other Gods in polytheism represent anthropomorphic (human-like) characteristics of God, which if associated with the creator would detract from the true nature of God (which is entirely metaphysical and can have no physical characteristics). If God is to be defined as the creator, then the polytheist faiths do not contradict monotheism because the defining factor of God (the definition of God being creator from the perspective of monotheism) is not the meaning attached to the word "God" when discussing the polytheist deities.

DG