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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the quest for a Unified Theory in physics and its philosophical implications regarding the concept of God. Participants explore the irony of seeking a single force behind the universe while monotheistic religions assert the existence of one God. The conversation highlights the distinction between scientific hypotheses and religious beliefs, emphasizing that a unified theory does not necessarily provide insights into morality or purpose. Key points include the limitations of physics in addressing existential questions and the ongoing debate about free will in a deterministic universe.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Unified Field Theory in physics
  • Familiarity with monotheistic religious concepts
  • Knowledge of philosophical arguments regarding free will
  • Basic grasp of the distinction between material and final causes in philosophy
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the implications of Unified Field Theory on philosophical discussions about existence
  • Explore the relationship between science and religion in the context of morality
  • Investigate the philosophical arguments surrounding free will and determinism
  • Examine the role of consciousness in the debate about purpose and existence
USEFUL FOR

Philosophers, physicists, theologians, and anyone interested in the intersection of science and spirituality, particularly those exploring the implications of a Unified Theory on concepts of God and morality.

  • #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 47 ·
2
Replies
47
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
655
  • · Replies 99 ·
4
Replies
99
Views
12K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
8K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
964