The Beginning
- Thread starter Rudolph1
- Start date
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,296
- 51,527
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,296
- 51,527
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Colossians 3:23 And whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men;
Upvote
0
Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,117
- 73
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
? We discovered laws of nature which existed long before we pondered them, we attempted to describe them as best we could, and we got a lot wrong in the process, but we are most certainly not their creators!
Upvote
0
Its a belief that anyone 'discovered' laws of nature.
They were synthesised by human minds, (with abundant document evidence thereof), who were trying to make consistent sense of in-common human perceptions, (derived from our senses).
A human mind exploring its own perceptions .. nothing more. The rest is just belief.
Upvote
0
Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,117
- 73
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
We merely named them, or do you believe there was no gravity before Newton?
Upvote
0
Humans were around before Newton. They could see for themselves that, (colloquially), 'what goes up goes down'.
Their description was different, but their sensory perceptions were no different than ours (or Newton's).
The big question though is: How can you demonstrate gravity when there are no human minds around to perceive it in the first place?
Answer is: you can't.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
.. and because you can't, this implies that the perception of gravity is human mind dependent
Upvote
0
BCP1928
Well-Known Member
- Jan 30, 2024
- 1,831
- 1,125
- 81
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Other Religion
- Marital Status
- Married
Newton didn't "discover" gravity, he created a mathematical model of its operation--which turned out not to be accurate. The universe exhibits orderly behavior which we can construct mental models of and call them laws of nature. But the models are descriptive, not proscriptive.
Upvote
0
Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,117
- 73
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
I take your point; how can we demonstrate Darwinian evolution, or Old Earth geology? We can't, we'd have to take that on faith.
But we can observe natural laws like gravity that have to be obeyed, even by my dog, whether he can name it or not, as much as he tries to defy it!
Upvote
0
Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,117
- 73
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, that would be my point; we didn't create them , we tried to describe them, and we still haven't figured them out.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Guy Threepwood
Well-Known Member
- Oct 16, 2019
- 1,117
- 73
- 51
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Well yes, a lot of these discussions tend to get mired in semantics.. but our mental models are an attempt to describe the ordering principles, inadequate as they may be.
Upvote
0
Astrophile
Newbie
- Aug 30, 2013
- 2,280
- 1,525
- 76
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Widowed
What alternative explanation have you got that fits the observed facts of biology and geology? Flood geology certainly doesn't work; it has been refuted many times.
Upvote
0
All are models created by the human mind .. and in this case, the first four (underlined), are deliberately intended for the purpose of testing them.
'Proscriptive' is a model too .. all I have to ask you is what do you mean by that and the evidence of the fingerprints of the human mind will appear before our eyes. At the very least, its a word which conveys various meanings amongst us humans. Models in science end up as being regarded as contextual, provisional and subject to change, with new evidence. Proscriptive seems like Absolutism, which would be excluded from science by its various meanings .. but its still a model ,albeit of a different kind, (when compared with science's models).
Upvote
0
The model of 'the Universe' was most likely created originally, from our visual perceptions (although a lot more human-ness has been thrown into it since). There is no need for it to necessarily refer to it as 'a something' existing independently from the descriptive model, although we all seem addicted to that belief .. (myself included). That belief adds nothing to scientific models, as it cannot be objectively tested. It is an optional belief. The only difference, perhaps, between you and me, is that I know its a belief.
'Orderliness' is a model conceived by the mind too .. one could argue that its one of the basics for us to make sense of our perceptions. Again, its origin is a creation by our own mind .. and only perhaps, (and undemonstrably), something beyond it (which make it a comforting belief).
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
No .. there's abundant objective evidence for demonstrating both.
Physical laws aren't 'obeyed'. That's just backwards thinking for people who don't understand how they have been distilled from observations.
The very term 'obedience' implies the existence of an untestable, unevidenced hiearchical model.
So what you mean by your model of your dog there, is that he 'defies it' .. but I'm pretty sure any dog wouldn't have clue about the implied hiearchical model there, or that he should 'obey' laws of gravity. I'd suggest you may be, likely(?), imposing all of that into your model of your dog and then using it, maybe(?) to add trained status as another model attribute(?)
Upvote
0
Similar threads
