[1]Kenneth Udut*Said - "A mild view of God, a Theosophical view
of God/Universe, random fluctuations in spacetime due to
indeterminate quantum states, are no different from each other.
All magical thinking." I said - I don't consider quantum
fluctuations to be magic. Kenneth continued with - "At present,
it's a story to fill in the gaps that is suitable for modern
people. It's a faith, there's no way to prove it, it can't be
verified. It's a modern version of a god. That doesn't make it
wrong or bad; just a modern religion for modern times." My
response ~ We are at least in agreement that quantum
fluctuations, while not proven, are supported by mathematical
formulation yes? If so, does that not remove the ability to lay
the claim of 'faith' since there is reason rather than simply
the desire? Kenneth, could you please clarify your position?
===== Ok, yes, we may be using different definitions of faith.
I am using a rather bland standard definition of faith:
"complete trust or confidence in someone or something."
The complete trust or confidence in this case is that
mathematical formulations are correct analogies for reality.
[2]
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm*is a
worthy read if I didn't present it before, I'm not sure.
In short, stepping beyond what can be proven is faith. Now I
personally believe we have a better faith-leg to stand on with
mathematics that goes beyond what's provable and it's somewhat
more reasonable that other faith-alternatives, but I don't
believe being more reasonable eliminates it from being a faith
position.
References
Visible links
1.
https://www.facebook.com/kenneth.udut
2.
https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/scenario/analogy.htm
