Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

joinfree · Jun 12, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
Watch making isn't dificult to grasp at all.
Anyone can go and learn to be a watch maker.

Having said that, how "dificult" something is to understand, has no bearing on how it came to be. At all.

Here is renewal of design-proof:
Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

AV1611VET · Jun 12, 2017

SkyWriting said:
Nope. Proofs only exist in Math.

And alcohol.

Which is why I don't understand why scientists harp against proof, since they invented & perfected it.

And along that subject, have you ever heard of: Kennedy curse ?

DogmaHunter · Jun 12, 2017

joinfree said:
Here is renewal of design-proof:
Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

It just repeats the same false statement.

How dificult a certain thing is to understand for our human brain, has no bearing on how that thing came to be.

Complexity is not an indicator for design at all...

Not even a by a long shot.

For example, I'ld say that a hurricane and its formation is a lot more complex and dificult to understand, then a stupid watch. Even just the enormous amount of parameters involved is already shockingly more complex then any watch.

I'll go ahead and assume (or hope) that you agree that hurricanes originate out of specific weather conditions... and that your god isn't coming down from wherever he lives, to "create" or "design" hurricanes.

joinfree · Jun 12, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
It just repeats the same false statement.

How dificult a certain thing is to understand for our human brain, has no bearing on how that thing came to be.

Complexity is not an indicator for design at all...

Not even a by a long shot.

For example, I'ld say that a hurricane and its formation is a lot more complex and dificult to understand, then a stupid watch. Even just the enormous amount of parameters involved is already shockingly more complex then any watch.

I'll go ahead and assume (or hope) that you agree that hurricanes originate out of specific weather conditions... and that your god isn't coming down from wherever he lives, to "create" or "design" hurricanes.

Let us take the next proof, please. The Nature can not have the infinite past, so there is supernatural component there.

juvenissun · Jun 12, 2017

joinfree said:
There are God proofs, but in debates we call them "arguments". So, we are inviting unbelievers to argue (the word "argue" is like the "argu-ment"). Let the opposer-s call our proofs the "arguments". Do you say in school: "the argument of Pythagorean theorem is following...."?!

You may. But it is very hard to argue about it.

joinfree · Jun 12, 2017

quatona said:
Cool - so you guys don´t need your faith anymore.

Faith is faithfulness to Knowledge. "Blind faith" is trust.

joinfree · Jun 12, 2017

quatona said:
Cool - so you guys don´t need your faith anymore.

Faith is faithfulness to the Knowledge. I know mine God.

Shemjaza · Jun 12, 2017

joinfree said:
Let us take the next proof, please. The Nature can not have the infinite past, so there is supernatural component there.

No, you have a mystery component.

How the substance of the universe, space and time came to exist are not known, but just saying "My god made it" doesn't actually explain anything. If you declare the universe coming from a timeless natural process is impossible, then creating an exception for your god to do the same is special pleading.

Freodin · Jun 12, 2017

Double Post, sorry.

Freodin · Jun 12, 2017

joinfree said:
Let us take the next proof, please. The Nature can not have the infinite past, so there is supernatural component there.

See, this is where your whole "argument" crumbles... the term "proof".

In natural sciences - like physics - there are no proofs. There are only observations and evidence that support or contradict a certain idea... called a "hypothesis".
Basically, in natural sciences, people say "All that we know, observe, experiment points to the conclusion of X. It could be something different, but we have reasons to believe X, but not something else... yet."

In mathematics - where there are "proofs", a proof is solid. It cannot be contradicted. Here, people say: "We have some basic premises, thus we can conclude from that X. There is no other way based on these premises."

What you present here is not even a conclusion as in natural sciences. Mathematics proofs may be based on unproven and unprovable axioms, but these axioms are either "obvious"... or defined as true. That's how mathematics work.

But your "conclusion" (it is not worth to be called a "proof") isn't based on anything like that. Your premises are not "obvious", and defining them as "true" would defeat your cause.

Basically, your way of "proof" consists of people saying "I conclude X, based on premises that I chose, and I refuse to consider anything else."

Weakest kind of "proof" there can be.

JackRT · Jun 12, 2017

joinfree said:
Let us take the next proof, please. The Nature can not have the infinite past, so there is supernatural component there.

I have never understood this argument. It is easy for a believer to hypothesize that a deity that cannot be observed or measured, has existed from eternity but nature that can be observed and measured cannot have an infinite past. This is hardly a "proof".

Speedwell · Jun 12, 2017

Shemjaza said:
No, you have a mystery component.

There can be no "mystery" in YECism--it's anathema to them, true sons of post-Enlightenment rationalism.

Just as an example, consider the Atonement of Christ. There have been many theological theories floated as to how this worked, but most Christian groups teach that it is ultimately a "mystery." That is, a miracle of cosmic scope well beyond our mere Earthly understanding. On the other hand, creationists have arbitrarily fixed on one of the theories--and that's it. If you don't believe it, go straight to hell without your $200.

joinfree · Jun 12, 2017

JackRT said:
I have never understood this argument. It is easy for a believer to hypothesize that a deity that cannot be observed or measured, has existed from eternity but nature that can be observed and measured cannot have an infinite past. This is hardly a "proof".

The cosmological proof:
Nature is what the Standard Instruments are measuring, and the Instruments is what measures the Nature. Infinities can not be measured, even in Principle. So, the Nature has finite past (and future), so there is the Supernatural component. Some Thoughts on Faith and Knowledge (Ходящий По Лжи) / Проза.ру

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jun 12, 2017

joinfree said:
What about Philosophical line of thinking?

What about it?

Michael · Jun 12, 2017

Freodin said:
See, this is where your whole "argument" crumbles... the term "proof".

In natural sciences - like physics - there are no proofs. There are only observations and evidence that support or contradict a certain idea... called a "hypothesis".

NASA - NASA Finds Direct Proof of Dark Matter

You're technically correct of course, but even many scientists have erroneously and falsely claimed to find 'proof' of things rather than just "evidence". And yes, they even used that term in the 'published' paper.

AV1611VET · Jun 12, 2017

Speedwell said:
Just as an example, consider the Atonement of Christ. There have been many theological theories floated as to how this worked, but most Christian groups teach that it is ultimately a "mystery."

Ever wonder why the Bible says our sins are scarlet ... not black?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Lay a marker board down on the floor and write the word SIN on it with a red marker.

Now spray the whole board with red paint.

What happens to the word SIN?

It disappears!

Red on red.

Exodus 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

Speedwell · Jun 12, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Ever wonder why the Bible says our sins are scarlet ... not black?

Isaiah 1:18 Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

Lay a marker board down on the floor and write the word SIN on it with a red marker.

Now spray the whole board with red paint.

What happens to the word SIN?

It disappears!

Red on red.

Exodus 12:13 And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses where ye are: and when I see the blood, I will pass over you, and the plague shall not be upon you to destroy you, when I smite the land of Egypt.

That's a cute illustration, but it does not prove that the penal substitution theory of the Atonement is the only correct and fully explanatory theory on pain of damnation.

joinfree · Jun 12, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
It just repeats the same false statement. ...

Let us consider the time machine proof:
According to Steven Hawking's paper "Chronology protection Conjecture" the site of time machine construction will be destroyed prior to the first time travel attempt. But the timing of destruction is not fixed by the theory. Such destruction is not natural: The Chronology Protector decides when the site must be hit on. So, there is invisible God as solution to all time travel paradoxes.

AV1611VET · Jun 12, 2017

Speedwell said:
That's a cute illustration, but it does not prove that the penal substitution theory of the Atonement is the only correct and fully explanatory theory on pain of damnation.

Then try the vicarious sacrifice one.

Speedwell · Jun 12, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Then try the vicarious sacrifice one.

I like it, but it is not allowed. If I'm going to be damned as an heretic anyway, I'll stick with the Sacred Mystery I learned about at church.

Why in Physics we have proofs, but in Theology - arguments?

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Code Monkey

Well-Known Member

... and God saw that it was good.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Contributor

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency