Science is all-knowing and all-powerful

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
lol, owkay then.

Not really much left to say, in that case.

I can only express how bizar it is to say such a thing.

Well, we know for a fact that he's using 95 percent placeholder terms for human ignorance to describe the universe, so he could only actually "know" about 5 percent more physics than anyone else at best case. :)
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
"physics"?

I think you misspelled "creationism" - and a rather strange and weird version of it.

It's funny you should say that since that's exactly how I feel about LCDM theory. Only YEC and LCDM require "faster than C expansion".

I'm talking about the ideas/concepts, not the accuracy thereof.

So you accept the claim that dad and astrologers "know" more physics than you do too?

I would have thought that I made that very clear already, with my star wars example.

I didn't claim I had.
Maybe you should respond to what I actually say, instead of what you would like me to so just so you can object to it.

I'm simply pointing out that knowledge of fictional claims isn't actually "knowledge" of physics, and Hawking isn't even claiming to "know" much about 95 percent of LCMD.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
I don't think I used the word "professional", which actually just means you get paid to do it...

Nevertheless, he certainly was a well-credentialed one.

Lots of skeptics are well credentialed.

Which, by the way, doesn't mean that someone without credentials can't contribute or discover things. It is, obviously, perfectly possible for someone to be self-taught and never take any exams and thus not get credentialed, while actually being more knowledgeable then certain other people with credentials.

My point was that he was free to propose ideas that were never put forth by the "professionals" and the profesionals don't necessarily have greater knowledge than a non-professional.

But, as always, the proof will be in the pudding.
Ideas fall and stand on their own merrit - not on the merrit of who proposes them.

And yet you're giving Hawking a free pass when it comes to knowledge especially since he can't even claim to "know" about 95 percent of LCDM.

The point about experts however, is that for outsiders -laymen-, it is quite impossible to evaluate the ideas.

That's simply an "assumption" which you believe applies to you and apparently to *everyone* that questions the mainstream dogma.

We simply lack the required knowledge to do so properly. So it is perfectly fine to rely on experts to provide us with answers.

What answers? 95 percent of their claims are actually devoid of any specific answers. They can't even name a single source of 'dark energy' and that makes up the majority of their "beliefs". How is that even considered "knowledge" anymore than dad's understanding of his different state past concept is a form of "knowledge"?

And since we aren't able to evaluate the ideas, the best thing we can do is go by the credentials. And perhaps also the overall reputation the expert in question has within his field of expertise.

Or you could decide to actually study the claim.




Why is it at all relevant what Einstein did to earn money?

That seems to be your only stipulation in term of "knowledge" as far as I can tell.

You certainly were implying something like that. Why else would you bring it up?
\

I brought it up an example of someone who wasn't a "professional" yet possessed greater "knowledge' than the professionals.


I'll skip the acne medicine debate other to point out again that sometimes "common sense" and "logic" are a better barometer of truth than what the "professionals" have to say about it.
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Astrologers know about astrology, just like homeopaths know about homeopathy.

In and in neither case does it mean that astrology and homeopathy are true / correct / accurate.

I couldn for the life of me list all the horoscope signs and what they supposedly mean 'in astrology', for example. An astrologist would be able to. ie: (s)he would know more about astrology then me.

Just like a so-called "trekkie" will now more about Star Trek, then I do.

How can you not get this?

How can you not get the fact that Hawking has no "knowledge" unless you/he can demonstrate his beliefs to be true, and he can't?
 
Upvote 0

Michael

Contributor
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
25,145
1,721
Mt. Shasta, California
Visit site
✟298,148.00
Faith
Christian
Of course it doesn´t, and noone said it did. Familiarity with "physics" (hypotheses, methods, ideas and concepts applied in physics) directly translates to "knowledge of physics". That´s what the Tagliatelle meant, and I´m not going to further feed your attempts at equating "having knowledge about an idea, approach, concept..." with "believing it to be accurate" or it "being accurate".
You are burning your own strawman here.

Like, I will readily concede that - if only for knowing terms like EU, lambda-whatnot, LCMD-plasma that you keep throwing around - you are more knowledgeable in physics than I am (I don´t even know the terms, lest the concepts). Doesn´t mean I think you have it right.

Then technically how could you even know who actually "knows" more about the universe?

Even most professional astronomers only "understand" LCDM and they're about as clueless about EU/PC theory as anyone else?
 
Upvote 0

Servantleader

Member
Jul 21, 2017
19
12
Pasadena
✟15,842.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
It's a god that is providing its worshipers the answers to their problems and questions. It does not require faith, it instead gives physical evidence visible to all. This pretty much explains why some people treat science like a religion.

Wow, I never considered the truth in that expression. Although I have never been deeply interested in science, I admit that I have repeatedly undermined the power and worship given to it by those in the field and those without faith who look to science for the answers. Perhaps science is yet another polluted gift in the hands of humanity, struggling under the influence of a proud and perverted spirit. Much like anything else under the sun, what the human mind was gifted to possess in this world was never intended to be idolized.

I do however respectfully disagree about the faith required to do science. If we consider the spirit of "hypothesis" and "predictions" in the experiments carried out, it appears there is a distinct hope in the unseen and unknown when science is practiced.
 
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

Dirk1540

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Sep 19, 2015
8,162
13,527
Jersey
✟778,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
What do you think of the statement, "Science is all-knowing and all-powerful"?

Yeah this sounds like a straw man. I don't think many people would argue that we don't know WAY more than we do.
 
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Well, science is indeed all-powerful. It just choses not to exercise this power, but indeed to stay within certain limits that are defined by its "nature".
And science is also all-knowing. It just choses not to share this knowledge with anyone else, except for some limited and open-to-interpretation "revelations"

See? Science is indeed like God!

/sarcasm, for anyone who didn't get it.
 
Upvote 0

quatona

"God"? What do you mean??
May 15, 2005
37,512
4,301
✟175,292.00
Faith
Seeker
Well, science is indeed all-powerful. It just choses not to exercise this power, but indeed to stay within certain limits that are defined by its "nature".
And science is also all-knowing. It just choses not to share this knowledge with anyone else, except for some limited and open-to-interpretation "revelations"

See? Science is indeed like God!
Also, by sharing this Knowledge with everybody Science would limit our Free Will.
Science Loves us and wants us to freely choose to Love It back.
 
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

lesliedellow

Member
Sep 20, 2010
9,652
2,582
United Kingdom
Visit site
✟104,175.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Liberal-Democrats
Well, science is indeed all-powerful. It just choses not to exercise this power, but indeed to stay within certain limits that are defined by its "nature".
And science is also all-knowing. It just choses not to share this knowledge with anyone else, except for some limited and open-to-interpretation "revelations"

See? Science is indeed like God!

/sarcasm, for anyone who didn't get it.

Can you think of any good reason why religion should ressemble science, or vice versa? Neither of them have too much in common with musicology. So what?
 
Upvote 0