Indeed it does. Calvinism places a certain kind of logic above all and through this logic alone, it’s easy to pin one in a purely logical quandary which results in elimination.

Indeed it does. Calvinism places a certain kind of logic above all and through this logic alone, it’s easy to pin one in a purely logical quandary which results in elimination.

===

That’s the point try to make to atheist friends but I don’t do it well enough. I don’t have a problem with them proselytizing. But if you’re going after a small segment of your target and then declaring VICTORY OVER ALL, well, it just looks silly doesn’t it?

====

Good point. “Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift? CHECKMATE THEISTS!” is kind of old, tired, and misses the point entirely.

I was very disappointed in Hawking a few years back when he wrote a book and did a show about “Why God need not exist” and had a mathematical looping Universe. Nothing really novel per se, but when I was watching the God he was then going to take down, I thought, “Wait, you invented a god concept that people DON’T believe in and knock it down.”. Basically, he made a strawgod.

and I thought, all that intellectual rigor just flew out the window didn’t it?

====

Oh while that’s tempting (that he’s just a puppet they drag out for show), I think he’s really still all there.

The dude’s got little physical dignity left as it is, so I wouldn’t take his mind away from him.

So I take him as seriously as if he was standing up on a TED talk somewhere.

===

He is. His relevance to Physics is mostly historical footnote as well.

But… I’ll give him credit where it’s due. He inspired many people to get into the sciences, which I admire. He’s representative of “great mind” and people do need heroes.

I just don’t like the direction his stuff has taken over the past 10 years. Getting involved in these political squabbles lowers the field of theoretical physics as a whole, turning it into a religion vs science, science vs government type debate which gets kind of tiring.

====

See? There ya go. People you’d never expect to find physics interesting now find it interesting. That’s a plus. Of course the TYPE of physics (mathematical universe) isn’t the direction *I’d* send people into… but then again, I suppose for a modern-day religion, it’s not the worst I suppose.

====

I don’t think so either :) I’m just speaking in general. From a religious POV, math/logic can easily be “peeking into the mind of God” and that’s fine if they do that I think. I don’t think math/logic is the fundamental of the Universe, just handily compatible with theoretical physics. [because the development of modern mathematics is married to the development of the physics in the same time frame].

—-

Indeed. What two objects are the same? None at all. But they’re loosely similar from a gross level, so math is handy. Statistics is handy. But once it leaves the level of “this is pragmatic” and moves into “THIS UNIVERSE IS MADE OF MATH”, well, things start getting a little ridiculous.

====

 

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


9 × nine =

Leave a Reply