@Thalion:
@syuvan12:
I don't think there's any relation.
As for if I believe in God, kind of. Lemme explain.
I believe that there is some God-like entity out there somewhere, but I don't believe in any religion, least of all those religions which bash other religions and discriminate. I mean, sure there are many good things we can learn from religion (I was raised as a Hindu, and there are a lot of stories and tales from which you can learn a lot of life lessons) but that's no reason to literally start killing people because they don't believe in the same thing.
So, basically, I don't believe in creationism and I'm all for science and The Big Bang Theory and stuff. But here's my theory/belief: According to the Big Bang Theory, the entire universe was like a dense structure and then there was a Big Bang and everything started expanding, right? But what created (Idk if that's the word I'm looking for) this dense structure? My belief is that some God-like entity may have created it.
Another theory I believe is that God, or any equivalent to God, is kinda like Schrödinger's cat. God is neither real nor unreal until we can see God. Does that make any sense?
But then again, I try not to get too engrossed in these subjects, cuz like it or not, we're probably not gonna get an answer to whether there is a God or not in our lifetime. Of course we should continue research and stuff about the creation of the universe, but there's no point in common people like us to be arguing about this kinda stuff.
Well, as a physcist i must say that there is not need for a "god", the actual theories, must to be proven, i need to say, allows the begining of the universe from nothing because of the concept of quantum vaccum. The quantum theories says that there are particles always stepping in and out of reality, since their life time is too small to be measured. This quantum fluctuation produced the big bang and all we know. Of course it is not my intention to offend the believes of any one, just saying about the actual theoriesof the physcists. But the beauty of physics is that it wants to explain everything through mathemathics, and with evidence, obviously
I'm not sure about a theologist or a phylosopher would say about your belive of schrodinger's god, but, some where i read that the proof of god is way beyond the hands of science. As a physcist your analogy is kind of cute, and weird.
Uhmmm if I understand correctly what you wrote you are referring to the physical nature of the quantum vacuum.
There is no need for god in physics is yet to be said : …
<<
The Higgs boson has been measured as an energy distribution with a peak of 5σ and a mass of 126 GeV.
You know the Higgs boson is called the god particle for a reason,
and this reason is because it is the key to further research in physics.
This research has a unique scope: a unified theory.
This unified theory is what you need to say if you need what Aristoteles called "first cause - unmoved mover" (an alias for god) or not.
And there is plenty of philosophical writings about this ...
Let's quote only "De philosophia" to have a direct bound with the principles of Christian theology known as Augustinianism,
(that accredited philosophically the Catholic Christian religion).
What the physics currently lacks is a theory that properly fit into (read predict/foretell) this fact (the mass) ...
Apparently the mass of the boson is really interesting as it was believed:
it is located in a sort of no man's land,
it does not prefer symmetries, which would require a mass contained in a interval of about 115 GeV,
nor a multiverse, which would require a mass contained in an interval of about 140 GeV,
it is perfectly located in the center.
The data were puzzling for physicists,
because they do not exclude any of the accepted theories,
but they require some adjustments to each of them (to exclude paradoxes) ...
One boson with this mass is a critical data for the fate of the universe because, without any other particle, this makes it unstable, temporary;
and since higgs holds everything together, if the boson were to disappear, everything would disappear altogether.
Higgs, the center of the standard model, could also be the one that will destroy everything:
the creator and destroyer, like an all in one Shiva, Brahma and Vishnu.
Let's have another binding with another religion, but this could go further with any of the existent ...
It is unlikely that any of the current theories, without being refined and revised to predict the discovered phenomena,
manages to be proven, and therefore,
saying that current theories do not need a god, then the physics does not need a god, is a stretch, a big big big stretch.
The science doesn't know.
What we, as a specie, have found during the scientific journey is what Dante Alighieri wrote as
Considerate la vostra semenza:
fatti non foste a viver come bruti,
ma per seguir virtute e canoscenza.
(vv. 118-120 / Inferno / Canto twenty-sixth)
Consider well the seed that gave you birth: you were not made to live as brutes, but to follow virtue and knowledge.
That God exists or not, it will not change what we learned:
what defines us is what we do, what we do is what makes us who we are, humans.
And regardless of any loophole used by any human interpretation of any dogma to justify murder and discrimination,
no one should be remembered for barbarism (also against homosexuals).
So let's everyone believes what makes feel better and what makes us strive to improve our behaviour,
whatever it is, for the good of all.
To answer that question, ontologically speaking, that makes perfect sense (if you have been able to follow the thought):
God is neither real nor unreal until you can see God (Principle of uncertainty &/or Gödel's incompleteness theorems).
This is what Nietzsche takes for granted in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_is_dead:
god is neither real or unreal until you see him, but to see him, you have to kill him
( in the sense that to undercover god you have to debunk him first ) …
Side side note : one of his books, that partially concerns this, has been named "the gay science" >:D
13
