Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
The universe could have, just not this universe.
|
I know that that's along the lines of what Augi was claiming. I just want to know why. I'm not really at the bleeding edge of the study of the physical sciences so i might be speaking from a position of ignorance here, but from what i gather it seems like a little bit of a stretch to claim that we have enough knowledge of the underlying workings of the universe that we can accurately speculate as to what would happen if the laws on which our understanding is based were completely different in an unspecified way.
It would be like attempting to predict the ramifications of noneuclidean geometry using only the axioms and notation of euclidean geometry, which doesn't make sense to do, since their axioms are contradictory.
I'm not saying that it isn't a valid perspective, just that it is fallacious to claim that it is a scientific one.
Quote:
Some who wish to maintain a very weak theist link while not rejecting any of the science will claim that it was gods influence that set up these laws, which are just right for allowing life to exist at all.
|
I won't disagree with this. It seems like a need to justify scientifically a belief in a higher power is more a sign of insecurity in one's faith.