Why ... (2)

[Oncedeceived]

Then why did the laws of gravitation turn out to be wrong?

The law of gravity is the actual Gravitational force. I don't know what you mean by it being "wrong."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Special Creation is what most Creationists advocate: God created the various "kinds" of living things separately ("specially") during the six days described in Genesis 1, and if science does not agree, then the scientists did something wrong. Some of the posters here are still posting what you see as irrelevant challenges to you because they think that you advocate that kind of Creationism.

I don't know what a day consists of according the the creation narrative. It isn't what we have today that is certain, as far as living things being created separately I don't think that we have an biblical support. We see in Genesis after the announcement of the act of creating creatures it says after its kind. This is in every instance. It also groups together sorts of things such as " Let the waters swarm with swarms of living creatures" Gen.1:20. This is in one day. It proves that there were different creatures on that day and we have no way of knowing which ones.

I agree that science is not your issue. Your issue is philosophy. That is why I suggested that we discuss the issue after refreshing ourselves on the philosophical study of Plato's Cave. Whether or not God is behind and sustaining the laws of nature is a question for the philosophy of science. Not for the application of science to immediate real-world problems. That would be Engineering.

An engineer wants to know his bridge won't collapse. He needs to know the tensile and compressive strengths of his materials, and the load the bridge can be expected to bear.

A scientist studies nature to discover how the various parts of it interact. He is the one who works out, empirically, and inductively, the formulas that the engineer applies to find his materials' properties. A scientist's education may include a class on the history of science, and another on the philosophy of science, but they would be part of an overview. Most of the work would be nuts and bolts observation and experimentation.

It is possible to do the nuts and bolts work while remaining skeptical or neutral about God's role in sustaining the laws we discover (agnostic). However, the antagonism between religion and science began entirely on the side of religion, especially organized religion. Despite his trouble with the Church, Galileo continued to believe in God. Isaac Newton also believed in God, as did most Western scientists.

You still are not getting the point I am trying to make. In fact, I feel that I am seriously lacking the ability to convey my points of view clearly enough to converse in this forum. It seems rather pointless.

 

[OllieFranz]

The law of gravity is the actual Gravitational force. I don't know what you mean by it being "wrong."

He's talking about the two major revisions in the mechanics branch of physics: Newtonian mechanics to Special Relativity, and Special Relativity to General Relativity. Because we discover the laws empirically, inductively, we sometimes need to revise our model when new data becomes available, and we can never be sure how close we are to the idealized versions that God has set forth. Skeptics, agnostics, and atheists can't even be sure that there is an actual God-ordained ideal that our models approach rather than just a mathematical "limit."

 

[OllieFranz]

You still are not getting the point I am trying to make. In fact, I feel that I am seriously lacking the ability to convey my points of view clearly enough to converse in this forum. It seems rather pointless.

I have been trying hard to understand your point of view, and help you to bring it to a point where we know that we we are discussing the same thing, and I'm reaching the conclusion that we will have reached the point of closest contact, and can only start talking past one another. One or both of us has hidden assumptions that the other does not and that we cannot articulate. Perhaps some time in the future we might "get it."

 

[Oncedeceived]

Semantics - the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

Is that not the game already in progress?

Hmmm. Good point.

You said, "God of the gaps only allows that God possibly could have worked but does not provide any such evidence."

God or gods. No evidence.

I am in agreement.

As for my opinion about gods, it is open to falsification.

I doubt that, but nice try.

Then one must be especially careful with linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.

Your use of a word that lacks a positive ontology is problematic for your argument.

It seems from a cognizant point of view, one would be able to determine that there are material things i.g., you, me and my dog and there are immaterial things i.g., Gravity or wind.

Of what use is your strawman argument?

Sure. But it is a dead end, as I have said repeatedly. Inconsistencies in an other's worldview is not evidence for gods. Or your God.

You have misunderstood my position. I have never claimed that inconsistencies in others' worldview is evidence for God. I said that one's worldview should not be self-refuting which materialism is.

But, my question is not about the ball in play, but is more a comment for you in general: why is your belief that you have knowledge of the truth inversely proportional your apparent desire to take on the burden of evidence?

This current discussion was not based on evidence in either position. However, demanding evidence for God in a materialistic model is irrational for a being that is outside of the material world. Jesus was the material evidence of God on earth. Unbelievers will deny that as well.

So it comes down to this Davian. Do you want to cut to the chase and claim that since you see no evidence of God that it is said and done and we discontinue our conversation since there would be absolutely no point, or do you wish to explore the rationale and viewpoint of someone that believes differently than you do? I am fine either way.

 

[Oncedeceived]

He's talking about the two major revisions in the mechanics branch of physics: Newtonian mechanics to Special Relativity, and Special Relativity to General Relativity. Because we discover the laws empirically, inductively, we sometimes need to revise our model when new data becomes available, and we can never be sure how close we are to the idealized versions that God has set forth. Skeptics, agnostics, and atheists can't even be sure that there is an actual God-ordained ideal that our models approach rather than just a mathematical "limit."

You really are a very nice person. I like you. I understood what he was saying but I wanted him to think about it. It wasn't gravity that was wrong but man's observations about it that were.

 

[lasthero]

It seems from a cognizant point of view, one would be able to determine that there are material things i.g., you, me and my dog and there are immaterial things i.g., Gravity or wind.

How are gravity and wind immaterial?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I have been trying hard to understand your point of view, and help you to bring it to a point where we know that we we are discussing the same thing, and I'm reaching the conclusion that we will have reached the point of closest contact, and can only start talking past one another. One or both of us has hidden assumptions that the other does not and that we cannot articulate. Perhaps some time in the future we might "get it."

I am curious about the hidden assumptions. If I may be honest and I hope that you won't be offended but I feel (and of course I could be wrong) that you are walking a tightrope in that you understand the materialistic characteristics of the universe and yet you believe in God. It seems to me that you have one foot in one worldview and the other in the other and it conflicts within.

 

[Loudmouth]

The law of gravity is the actual Gravitational force. I don't know what you mean by it being "wrong."

It was shown that Newton's Laws of Gravity were wrong. How can that be if laws are absolute?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How are gravity and wind immaterial?

Ok, wind is not a good example after thinking about it. It has matter due to the fact that it is air. Sorry, didn't think that through.

 

[Loudmouth]

I said that one's worldview should not be self-refuting which materialism is.

You have not shown that materialism is self-refuting.

However, demanding evidence for God in a materialistic model is irrational for a being that is outside of the material world.

We asking for evidence that God caused effects in the material world which is entirely within the material world. It is claimed that material creatures were created, so that makes God testable through materialism.

Jesus was the material evidence of God on earth. Unbelievers will deny that as well.

No, we will keep asking for evidence to back this claim. What is that evidence?

So it comes down to this Davian. Do you want to cut to the chase and claim that since you see no evidence of God that it is said and done and we discontinue our conversation since there would be absolutely no point, or do you wish to explore the rationale and viewpoint of someone that believes differently than you do? I am fine either way.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

 

[Loudmouth]

What material do they consist of?

Current research is looking into gravitons as the particle that confers gravitational force.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It was shown that Newton's Laws of Gravity were wrong. How can that be if laws are absolute?

Gravity didn't change.

 

[OllieFranz]

I am curious about the hidden assumptions. If I may be honest and I hope that you won't be offended but I feel (and of course I could be wrong) that you are walking a tightrope in that you understand the materialistic characteristics of the universe and yet you believe in God. It seems to me that you have one foot in one worldview and the other in the other and it conflicts within.

There certainly may be some truth in that assessment. But would it not also be true, to some degree or another, to anyone but an atheistic materialist at the one extreme, and a troglodytic Luddite at the other? Don't we all try to find some balance between the material world and the spiritual one?

Edited to add: I suspect even the skeptics, agnotics, and atheists feel the tension, though they are more likely to consider it a philosophical issue or even a psychological one, rather than a spiritual one.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Current research is looking into gravitons as the particle that confers gravitational force.

Well if that happens we can go back farther.

 

[Loudmouth]

Gravity didn't change.

So you are saying that the laws are judged by how accurately they describe the workings of the material world?

 

[Loudmouth]

Well if that happens we can go back farther.

This only demonstrates that you are running away from the evidence in order to protect your beliefs. You are saying that the first thing you do is find a way to lessen the impact of evidence on your beliefs.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There certainly may be some truth in that assessment. But would it not also be true, to some degree or another, to anyone but an atheistic materialist at the one extreme, and a troglodytic Luddite at the other? Don't we all try to find some balance between the material world and the spiritual one?

True, we live in this world and must keep our equilibrium. If we are the sort that really wants to know about the world and the mechanisms that God designed in the universe it becomes that much harder. It seems to me, that it comes down to authority. Which is to be our authority. Anyway, that is where it starts and ends with me.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So you are saying that the laws are judged by how accurately they describe the workings of the material world?

Perhaps if we changed the word laws here? Perhaps forces or rules would work better? You are thinking of laws as the description of the workings of the world. I am talking about the actual workings of the world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This only demonstrates that you are running away from the evidence in order to protect your beliefs. You are saying that the first thing you do is find a way to lessen the impact of evidence on your beliefs.

What evidence? You haven't provided any evidence. If this would prove to be accurate, it still doesn't explain what force is behind that force because there would by necessity be one.