Unified Theory & God: A Search for a Single Force?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the quest for a Unified Theory in physics, likening it to the concept of God as a singular force behind existence. Participants explore the irony of scientists seeking a single explanation for the universe while monotheistic religions also propose one God as the ultimate cause. The conversation delves into the limitations of physics in addressing questions of purpose and morality, emphasizing that while physics can explain how things happen, it does not address why they occur. Additionally, the topic of free will arises, with differing views on whether human choices are genuinely free or determined by various factors. Ultimately, the dialogue highlights the complexities and philosophical implications of unifying scientific and theological perspectives.
  • #31
I just have to add this monumental strawman by Harris that I originally missed from this talk.

"Does the Taliban have an opinion on physics that is worth considering? No? Then how is their ignorance any less obvious, on the subject of human well-being?"

Does Harris have an opinion on physics worth considering? Did Martin Luther King have any opinion on physics worth considering? Did African slaves on the plantation have any opinions on physics worth considering? They can't be trusted to know anything about anyone's well being, much less their own.

So, if a scientologist, Christian, communist, Muslim, etc..came up with a workable form of quantum gravity it would make it "obvious" that their worldview/personal philosophy now has seniority over others and their personal philosophies are now worth considering. Unbelievable.

How can anyone listen to this man?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
itwillend said:
Side note guys and gals... Is there an implication in the thread that morals are not absolute?

If I may, would you all not agree at the very least among humans without mental deficiency that a life free from harm is universally agreed upon? I find that concept alone to be common for everyone on the planet, again minus mentally impaired persons.

Thoughts?

"Harm" is subjective. You don't really want to rid the world of harm. There is harm in all things. How many people die in cars? You want to ban them? I think most violent crime involves alcohol. Ban that? I walk into my local supermarket and the majority of the foods in there are bad for me. Ban them? A woman rejects my advances. This is psychologically harmful to me and I'm sure it would show up on Harris' little neuroscans. What does science demand we do about all these harms? I guarantee you personally will allow some harms and not tolerate others. Where does science show us what harms should be tolerated?
 
  • #33
itwillend said:
Is your response assuming that I am limiting the god-concept to just this one aspect "unified theory"?

I mean, the irony to what I am saying is, our greatest physicists would like to find a unified theory, a single force behind it all. At the same time, monotheistic religions believe one God is behind it all.

The/a unified theory/'theory of everything' will explain how 'forces', 'energies', mass, time, and space correlate in a way that makes logical and scientific sense. It won't be a 'single' force behind it all; and, it doesn't and won't relate to religious ideas.
 
  • #34
Max Faust said:
That would have to be a very passive and panentheistic God-concept, like the Aristotelian "unmoveable mover".

Pantheistic, yes but wouldn't this type of pantheistic God contain all information in the universe/multiverse and, in a very real sense be omniscient?
 

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
8K
  • · Replies 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
12K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
12K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
10
Views
912