Because the people he actually wants in heaven are those who appreciate his work in detail. He is not interested in people who have no interest in studying science and are mere sycophants.

Thats a testable predicition of General Relativity not String "theory".

General relativity is a testable prediction of string theory.

Now you're being ridiculous. General relativity is a theory not a result.

When string theory can test for new knowledge then it will be worthy of being called a scientific theory..

Actually, only one of those people don't still do as far as I know, and I'm not even sure about that last one.

So you disagree with RLK then that emergence is not science?

LOL, what does this even mean? General relativity is not some stand alone theory. It falls very naturally as a low energy theory of gravity out of high energy particle physics provided you use the string theory picture. This is quite unexpected, as the normal language of particle physics has a very tough time even talking about gravity. Much less a theory fully equivalent to GR at low energies and from a parent theory that never talks about space time curvature or geodesics.

ah, I didn't actually read the OP. My fault.

Premise two is very debatable depending on what you mean by a "better life".

Of course it is debatable. I actually think the arguments in its favor are pretty strong. But that doesn't matter. Since OP says that the atheist cannot even explain the human conscience, I don't need a true theory to show his claim is false, only a coherent one. That is, I don't need evidence, only a likely story.

I'm kinda glad that no one bothered to read the OP, the thread would undoubtedly have been quite uninteresting if they had. As it is, I love watching MR, RLK and others get into the physics talk in RGT!

GR increased our knowledge and has had practical applications(like giving us the knowledge to build a working GPS).

String Theory hasn't provided as of yet any new knowledge/practical application....just some cool speculation and if thats a reason to believe it then one might as well believe in the bible because that provides some cool speculation too.

You are right, at least in my case. When I saw emergence being invoked I assumed we were discussing consciousness and did not read the OP closely enough to catch my mistake. I apologize for the derail.

I disagree in principle although with some qualifiers I would agree. If one specifically states that they are conducting a scientific inquiry then there are rules of engagement that define how theories should be constructed. In some sense science is the exercise of trying to describe the universe as completely as possible without invoking the existence of God to cover gaps. I am ok with that. I am a scientist and I never would consider God as the answer to a scientific question.

On the other hand, more fundamentally, a theory without physical test is just that. Although the rules of science may indicate that one be considered rather than another, without a test there is no way to say which is correct.

In response to your questions about God's motivation for doing things the way He has, I could easily postulate rational reasons for all of those things. That does not prove that they happened, but it does eliminate them as definitive counterexamples. Frankly, I have always been impressed with your approach to things, so I would bet that you could answer your own questions also. Therefore, I will not bother.

Wait, you think the universe is "fine tuned" for life? If so, can I request that you please create a thread about why you believe this.

Like I already said, general relativity falls out of string theory, if you think it is good that is a great argument FOR string theory. String theory has already increased our understanding of gauge theory and even if it is "wrong" the techniques that it has helped developed will be used in whatever replaces it. You are wrong and i encourage you to actually learn about these things to see why.

you answer point 1 with point 3. Clearly we aren't extinct so clearly there was some factor preventing "pure evil" from taking over during the evolution process -> conscience.



4. Doing good because you fear the wrath of an invisible man seems more ridiculous and less sincere than an atheist doing the same act of good. So by your own logic the only truly good people in the world must be atheists. This is not to say all atheists are good, however those that do good, do so by choice and not fear of retribution. Whereas the same acts done by a religious person can be taken with a grain of salt since it is simply to satisfy an end goal.

From a purely scientific point of view the human conscience or morals are an indication of evolution. Think of it this way, a group of people working together and looking out for the interests of each other instead of just their own, stand a much greater chance of survival than a single person working with their own goals in mind.

I would go one step further (or maybe closer?) and just say "science tries to explain the universe as completely as possible period. One doesn't have to know what god is to do science anymore than 1 has to know about the matrix or magic dragons. It's only when these ideas start having measurable impacts on the universe that they need to become part of science and god has not done that yet, just like all the other crazy ideas I can come up with.

This is true, but I think the notion of a "test" has changed over time. Reproducibility is a big deal, but I don't think the lack of it should keep cosmology from being a science.

I agree that you could do that, so it isn't worth going over. I'll try to say my point as concisely as possible. I think the multiverse idea, though hugely problematic from a testability standpoint, should be considered more likely than things like god and the matrix because atleast there are hints from physics that something like the multiverse is possible. I admit that it is very possible we are wrong about this.

If the universe requires a creator, I think gods that it makes no sense to worship, like 5D junior high science students that are actually fairly incompetent, are much much more likely than omnipotent religion like gods.

GR and Quantum mechanics are the pillars of string theory and until String theory can make its own falsifiable predictions its not really a theory.

That does not make it equivalent to the bible

I can agree with that, although I think that the arguments for two are going to be fairly weak. Then it is a question of how strong do the arguments have to be for the argument to be considered explaining. After all, if someone said "god did it", I doubt you would consider that an explanation.

Saying that God implanted a conscience in humans is an explanation. It isn't an explanation of the mechanism by which God did so, but I didn't explain that either.

Ok, as long as we are on the same page as to what qualifies as an explanation.

Is there a better word than "theory" for a mathematically rigorous framework which ties together the two pillars of modern science under a single umbrella?

"Theory" seems just fine by me.

way to mix metaphors