Calling all scientists! (evolutionists o.k. too)


#1

What do you think?


#2

about what?


#3

[quote=Steve Andersen]about what?
[/quote]

Sorry had to re post the poll ! :slight_smile:


#4

science will undoubtedly answer the “hows” of the universe
(after all the basic rules are quite simple
a few basic particles and forces)

but can’t begin to answer the “whys”


#5

Science can’t explain any of the big metaphysical questions.

But, everyone seems to have forgotten what the big metaphysical questions are, anyway.


#6

What metaphysical quesitons? :rotfl: :banghead: :hmmm:


#7

wow I am the only one who voted yes.

But I think that everything has form. Yes even prayers and love, they have reaction to action so they have form. It may not be a physical form but its still some type of matter.


#8

I voted no, but I wanted to point out that the Theory of Everything, as I understand it, relates to scientific matters only, and even then is primarily an explaination of things on a quantum and atomic level. As it is now, multiple Theories, apparently contradictory, are required to explain what we observe on those levels, and the Theory of Everything is the “holy grail” that would connect the quantum level with the “macro” level of physics, a sort of missing link if you will.

Not important, but as a science junkie I thought I’d point that out :wink:


#9

The more questions science answers the more questions it raises. :slight_smile:


#10

No, it can’t explain “everything”, because, as was noted in other posts, some things are beyond its scope.

This is actually a pet pieve of mine. My Dad was a mechanic, and only once did I ever try to open a paint can with a screwdriver. It was promptly pointed out to me that opening paint cans was not what that tool was for, and I was abusing it. And when people try to invoke or use (really abuse) science by using or invoking it outside its pervue, I think of the paint can and screwdriver, and resent the abuse.

Science, of course. can’t explain God. The irony of the abuse of science to try to eliminate the very concept of God is that it is the very order of His creation that is the basis of science, and belief in Him (science didn’t happen in the pantheistic Orient), and His order, that prompted the humans believed to develop science.

Blessings,

Gerry


#11

[quote=Dismas2004]What metaphysical quesitons? :rotfl: :banghead: :hmmm:
[/quote]

Oh, well… :rolleyes:

how about what created science, itself?
or Who?


#12
Religion without science is blind. 
Science without religion is lame.
~~ Albert Einstein

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Before God we are all equally wise - 
and equally foolish.
~~ Albert Einstein

#13

I voted no, but I actually do think that science is not outside the scope of God. I think God is the most awesome scientist in the world. I think occassionally there are people like Einstein who catch a glimpse of God with things like the theory of relativity. I think once we become part of the church Triumphant, we will then be able to see the wonderful connectiveness of God and science. I just don’t think it will be possible until then, hence the no vote. JMHO.

Your sister in Christ,
Maria


#14

Only God is omniscent, He knows everything.

Science is not God.

Science will never know everything. :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile: :slight_smile:


#15

[quote=Ghosty]I voted no, but I wanted to point out that the Theory of Everything, as I understand it, relates to scientific matters only, and even then is primarily an explaination of things on a quantum and atomic level. As it is now, multiple Theories, apparently contradictory, are required to explain what we observe on those levels, and the Theory of Everything is the “holy grail” that would connect the quantum level with the “macro” level of physics, a sort of missing link if you will.

Not important, but as a science junkie I thought I’d point that out :wink:
[/quote]

Yes your right but by the Theory of Everything I meant to ask if you think science will eventually have the ability to explain ALL things in the universe, or are there some things that it will never be able to explain given any amout of time.

The limits of science’s descriptive power from a scientists perspective is what I am interested in.


#16

[quote=Jermosh]wow I am the only one who voted yes.

But I think that everything has form. Yes even prayers and love, they have reaction to action so they have form. It may not be a physical form but its still some type of matter.
[/quote]

Depends on what you mean by “form.” If everything is** matter**, then there is no God.

God cannot be matter, because matter occupies space and time. Matter has parts. If God is composed of parts, then He can come apart, and thus cannot be always Himself.

If God occupies space and time, then He is limited by space and time.

God is a pure spirit. To understand spirit, it is best to read Frank Sheed’s “Theology For Beginners.” But spirit is a real ‘substance’ which does not have parts; and because it does not have parts, does not occupy time or space. For that reason, it is not perceptible by the senses, and thus not amenable to scientific inquiry–i.e. by means of measurement. (It is amenable to philosophical inquiry, by means of reason.)

Some of the big metaphysical questions:

Why does anything exist? Are beings contingent or necessary? Why are there many things rather than just one thing? Do things have a purpose? Is man qualitatively different from animals? How can I know universals when all things are individual?

And here is a question that may be physical rather than metaphysical: Is matter (or space-time for that matter) infinitely divisible? If you have a ‘smallest particle’ or indivisible quark, or indivisible string, does that object still take up space? If so, why is it indivisible?

The Big TOE theories (Theory of Everything) may ultimately be able to explain the physics of the Universe, but they won’t be able to explain the physics of God, because God has no physics.


#17

Even on a purely physical level, Einstein and Heisenberg debated this for years. Einstein would’ve voted “yes,” but was unable to devise an experiment to define the position of one electron at any moment in time.
Heisenberg would’ve voted “no,” believing there were some things we are incapable of determining; like the position of one electron at any moment of time, as well as many other things.
Is light a particle or is light a wave? Yes!


#18

The contemporary empirical tradition recognises a definite geometric value for the smallest lenght -

“The Planck length is the scale at which classical ideas about gravity and space-time cease to be valid, and quantum effects dominate. This is the ‘quantum of length’, the smallest measurement of length with any meaning. And roughly equal to 1.6 x 10-35 m or about 10-20 times the size of a
proton.”

physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?plkl|search_for=all

Unfortunately the creation of a logical limit for lenght (Planck lenght) creates unsurmountable difficulties for the relationship between diameter,circumference,radius and the Pi value.

The Planck lenght is also a diameter so it is possible to create a
circumference from that diameter.The ratio between the planck lenght and its circumference is the non periodic decimal Pi value insofar as 3.1415… is a string of decimals that is is neither ordered nor disordered.

If you can create a circumference from a diameter you can also create a radius half the original Planck lenght otherwise it is tantamount to saying that Pi is a rational value.There is no determinate lenght/diameter where the Pi begins and ends but unfortunately the quantum mechanic guys not only have set a physical limit at the Planck lenght where there is none but attempt to tamper with the most fundamental constant in geometry and nature -Pi.In short,there is no lower geometric limit to lenght.

If you ever come across those tortured explanations which describe the difference between the event horizon and singularity of a so-called Black Hole have a good chuckle.Unless you really wish to drive yourself crazy trying to reconcile a circumference (event horizon) with a center (singularity) there are better ways to approach stellar collapse,geometrically,conceptually and bottom line.

%between%


#19

[quote=oriel36]The contemporary empirical tradition recognises a definite geometric value for the smallest lenght -
[/quote]

Thanks for your enlightening post. I read somewhere that if you try to subdivide spacetime into units smaller than the Planck length or the Planck time, it becomes a chaotic foam in which up and down, direction, or forward or backward in time have no meaning; it referred to this as the “quantum foam.” Later I heard, perhaps on this board, that someone had actually proposed a structure for the quantum foam.

I’m glad that physics seems to have done away with “point particles.” I could never understand how a vast collection of point particles of zero dimension could somehow add up to a 3 or more dimensional universe, since no matter how many zeros you add to one another, the result is always zero.


#20

Physical and Chemical Science can measure on the naturally occuring objects.( Be they energy or atomic particles)

Sciences as we know them are not capable of making metaphysical measurements. Simply, Science cannot touch souls or spirits.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.