Where gravity and forces come from..!

[Greg1234]

My post was an analogy about how God of Gaps makes for bad theology.

God of the Gaps of the Gaps is bad Darwinisming.

 

[Nostromo]

However, science is full of gaps.

That really is the point of science, to examine the gaps in our understanding and try to figure them out.

As I've said before, you religion has just as many gaps plus all the scientific discoveries which you reject. You still don't know how or why God did any of the stuff he supposedly did, and you have no way to find out. Saying science is full of gaps is pretty pointless as it in no way diminishes the validity of science, and is also a case of the coal mine calling the kettle black.

 

[ug333]

You keep making this baseless assertion that without knowing what the fundamental forces are caused by we know nothing. This is bunk. Yet you just continue to assert it with no real argument.

Is it that they could all change tomorrow, because we don't know they are constant? If that is the case, I think we are struggling with definitions. I don't claim absolute knowledge of anything. I admit we could be all sharing a dream, and nothing is real, or god created the earth 6000 years ago and made it look old. But when the evidence that we have shows the forces have been constant for a long time, it is reasonable to assume they either change slowly or don't change at all.

I can also say that theories based on evidence, reason, logic, and a physical only model of the universe have done a lot of good in this shared experience I like to call reality.

 

[ug333]

I hate when people reply to themselves, but I want to add something that I didn't make clear:

When I say knowledge, 99% of the time I am talking about the term in the practical sense: things that seem to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. That is where the definitions could be crossing. You seem to be talking about knowledge in a 100% absolute sense. So, my whole point is I am not claiming any absolute knowledge, only knowledge beyond a reasonable doubt. And that kind of knowledge can be achieved when building upon forces that can be shown (in the same "reasonable doubt" sense of the word) to be constant for quite some time, but that we don't fundamentally understand.

Of course we COULD be wrong, but I have no reason to believe that we are (reasonable doubt).

 

[Delphiki]

I think this thread is a testament to how moronic and stubborn the anti-science movement is. Dad, here, is setting the perfect example for his side, and is ultimately helping to finally squash it once and for all. So... Thank you, dad, for being a totally asinine ignoramus in this thread, as it's helps people steer away from your absurd views of fear-inducing mythology and towards the real truth. Maybe you'll even get to make a few atheists out of people! Good job! Keep up the good- er.. bad work!

 

[dad]

That really is the point of science, to examine the gaps in our understanding and try to figure them out.

They haven't done it though. The gaps are still gaping in scope. Even the basic forces are not really understood as the thread has illustrated. When science makes stuff up to fill gaps on creation and life, it defeats the point you claim.

As I've said before, you religion has just as many gaps plus all the scientific discoveries which you reject.

?? I can't recall finding these..because from creation week to eternity is filled in pretty good.

You still don't know how or why God did any of the stuff he supposedly did, and you have no way to find out.

But I don't call not knowing science. There is enough that we do know to keep us busy till eternity comes. Relax.

Saying science is full of gaps is pretty pointless as it in no way diminishes the validity of science, and is also a case of the coal mine calling the kettle black.

False. Believers have been told the knowledge they need to know for the time being. No gaps in what we have. Not having all knowledge is no gap. The gaps that matter in science are in all the things it pretends to know. How else could they talk about gravity and other present forces doing stuff deep in the future?

 

[dad]

You keep making this baseless assertion that without knowing what the fundamental forces are caused by we know nothing. This is bunk.

I agree it is bunk, and you just made it up. I never said science knows nothing.

Be honest. It knows all sorts of things, like how to make me a better toilet tissue, or shoe polish.

Is it that they could all change tomorrow, because we don't know they are constant? If that is the case, I think we are struggling with definitions. I don't claim absolute knowledge of anything.

Then why does science claim the universe will go dark, and be eaten by a black hole?

I admit we could be all sharing a dream, and nothing is real, or god created the earth 6000 years ago and made it look old.

That is foolish. Just because the present state is temporal does not make it unreal.

But when the evidence that we have shows the forces have been constant for a long time, it is reasonable to assume they either change slowly or don't change at all.

But do you really even have that? Seems to me that it may be more of assuming that they were always the same. Based on that, they could not have changed. But what if that premise is false? You don't know. Stick to what you do know.

I can also say that theories based on evidence, reason, logic, and a physical only model of the universe have done a lot of good in this shared experience I like to call reality.

Like the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there are more than good fruits on the present only tree.

 

[dad]

I think this thread is a testament to how moronic and stubborn the anti-science movement is.

You are dreaming. I am pro science, just anti falsely so called science.

Dad, here, is setting the perfect example for his side, and is ultimately helping to finally squash it once and for all. So... Thank you, dad, for being a totally asinine ignoramus in this thread, as it's helps people steer away from your absurd views of fear-inducing mythology and towards the real truth. Maybe you'll even get to make a few atheists out of people! Good job! Keep up the good- er.. bad work!

Getting people to think, and admit that they actually don't know all that much, and certainly not enough to oppose God does not make 'atheists'. Relax.

 

[Delphiki]

Keep doing Satan's work! You're making Dawkins and Darwin proud!

 

[dad]

Keep doing Satan's work! You're making Dawkins and Darwin proud!

I should learn not to feed the trolls.

 

[Delphiki]

I should learn not to feed the trolls.

It would be a shock to witness you actually learn something!

By all means, continue turning people off.

 

[dad]

It would be a shock to witness you actually learn something!

By all means, continue turning people off.

Some things need to be turned off. Some things need to be turned on. I will not ask admittedly ignorant people, where the lights came from, when they can't even figure out what makes them work.

 

[Delphiki]

*munch munch munch*

That be some mighty tasty billy goat! Tastes like sheep.

 

[dad]

*munch munch munch*

That be some mighty tasty billy goat! Tastes like sheep.

When the science troll says 'you may not pass' we can now laugh, and walk right over it. No need to detour through the same state path, that it lurks on, we can use the different state past bridge.

 

[Nostromo]

?? I can't recall finding these..because from creation week to eternity is filled in pretty good.

Creation week is pretty well filled in over here too. It's the "how" that you got snotty about, although you still can't tell us how God did what he supposedly did.

But I don't call not knowing science.

Neither does anybody else.

False. Believers have been told the knowledge they need to know for the time being. No gaps in what we have.
Not having all knowledge is no gap. The gaps that matter in science are in all the things it pretends to know.

• Believers don't know everything, they know what they need and that's ok
• Non-believers don't know everything, they know what they need but that's not enough. They should know everything or they deserve no respect.

 

[dad]

Creation week is pretty well filled in over here too.

Not with knowledge. That is your problem.

It's the "how" that you got snotty about, although you still can't tell us how God did what he supposedly did.
Neither does anybody else.

Did what? The earth was made first. According to the bible the standard model is therefore bunk. In fact, I really am starting to suspect that stars may not be at all what science has assumed and believed. (physical only large bodies)

Believers don't know everything, they know what they need and that's ok

They know what we need in this state.

Non-believers don't know everything, they know what they need but that's not enough. They should know everything or they deserve no respect.

They do not know what they need. Worse still, the make stuff up as if they do know. Worse yet it is dark, anti biblical stuff. For that, they deserve exposure. I am happy to help.

 

[Nostromo]

Not with knowledge. That is your problem.

Not with stuff from the bible you mean. Just maths, physics and observations.

Did what? The earth was made first. According to the bible the standard model is therefore bunk.

That's not how he did it, that's what he did. Try again.

They do not know what they need. Worse still, the make stuff up as if they do know. Worse yet it is dark, anti biblical stuff. For that, they deserve exposure. I am happy to help.

They don't know what you think they need to know. That's not the same thing as what they actually need.

 

[Delphiki]

• Believers don't know everything, they know what they need and that's ok
• Non-believers don't know everything, they know what they need but that's not enough. They should know everything or they deserve no respect.

QFT

They do not know what they need. Worse still, the make stuff up as if they do know. Worse yet it is dark, anti biblical stuff. For that, they deserve exposure. I am happy to help.

Let me guess. You know what we need and what we need to believe, right, das fuhrer?

 

[ug333]

I agree it is bunk, and you just made it up. I never said science knows nothing.

Be honest. It knows all sorts of things, like how to make me a better toilet tissue, or shoe polish.

OK, my bad. You just said we don't even know what the fundamental forces are, as if this is a great failing. It is logically obvious that we will never know about the details of the most fundamental thing we know about. That isn't a failure, that is simply true of every topic.

Then why does science claim the universe will go dark, and be eaten by a black hole?

There are multiple theories about the long term outcome of the universe. I don't think any of them have been proven true beyond a reasonable doubt.

That is foolish. Just because the present state is temporal does not make it unreal.

I agree it is foolish, but a hypothetical possibility none the less. That was my point. I don't believe it, and I never will unless someone can present evidence that would give me cause to believe it. So, for now, I say I "know" that our shard perception is in fact reality.

But do you really even have that? Seems to me that it may be more of assuming that they were always the same. Based on that, they could not have changed. But what if that premise is false? You don't know. Stick to what you do know.

We would expect evidence to be left behind if the fundamental forces were not constant. There has been no evidence to indicate that these forces haven't been constant. If gravity were to change, it would have massive effects on orbiting objects. The orbit of the planets seems to imply that gravity has been a constant since at least the formation of this solar system.

Fairly strong evidence in favor of a constant, lack of evidence against them being constant, I will stick with constant. In fact, I will say I "know" they are constant (or extremely slow to change), within that whole reasonable doubt. You can run off and say you don't believe that, but that is why I brought up the shared dream hypothesis.

Like the tree of knowledge of good and evil, there are more than good fruits on the present only tree.

"present only" ... I think you ment physical only. Show me evidence of real harms, and I will begin to consider them.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Not with knowledge. That is your problem.

Not to worry -- few people mistakenly associate creationism with knowledge.

Did what? The earth was made first. According to the bible the standard model is therefore bunk. In fact, I really am starting to suspect that stars may not be at all what science has assumed and believed. (physical only large bodies)

And the Bible's competing "model" is meaningful because...?