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

Michael · Jun 13, 2017

Freodin said:
Are there currently any such means? Not that I am aware of... but I am just an amateur, and "high" physics have never been my speciality.

Only EU/PC theory is restricted to empirically demonstrated claims, so it's not like it's even particularly congruent with either of the other two cosmology claims. I don't know of any observations of "gravitons" for that matter, so even gravity theories (plural) are possible and they may not be resolvable by ordinary means.

But that doesn't keep scientists from looking, does it? While in religion, there just are no means, period.

In my experience, an individual who tends to "hold belief" in one preferred cosmology theory (or one specific gravity theory) tends to reject other options. They "could" obviously entertain and explore other options if they were so inclined, but that would appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Most M-theory proponents probably haven't even read Alfven's work for instance, even if they do have a pretty good grasp of LCDM.

"God as nature" would be pantheism, so I fear I cannot follow you here.

Sorry about that. I caught my mistake (omission) and I edited and fixed it, but evidently not before you started to respond. My apologies. God as nature could imply either Panentheism or Pantheism, but only one of them would necessarily 'predict' a direct God/human interaction. Sorry for the confusion.

But whether pan- or panentheism: a relationship can only exist between independent entities. So in order to keep "God as nature", and have humans have a relationship with it, you would have to define humans as supernatural (or rather, extranatural).

From my perspective that's like suggesting that humans are extra-natural by virtue of the fact that billions of neutrinos flow though them all the time. Unless you're going to describe "awareness" as being "extra-natural", there's nothing particularly extra-natural about ascribing awareness to the circuity of spacetime.

But "nature" is not within everyone. Quite the opposite.

That depends on what one means by the term "nature". We're all composed of the very same three basic building blocks, specifically electrons, neutrons and protons arranged in some particular order.

You misunderstood me here. I did not say that "their theology" or "their science" is complete. I specifically responded to your post where your said that some answers (in fact: all answers) are incomplete. Theology doesn't work that way. As Ygrene said in his post: "The unchangeable nature of the Most High God is an axiom." There you have it: a "complete" answer.

That doesn't sound very complete from my perspective, it sounds more like a testable hypothesis from where I sit. From my perspective God is constantly changing over time. Different axioms for different folks I suppose.

And other than being a rare exception, this position is prevalent in theological positions. Like "There must be a supernatural cause" (joinfree paraphrased).
Agreed, scientists can be dogmatic. But science as a system is not. Theology is.

Well, theology is a bit like science or religion IMO. It really depends on how one 'practices' theology or science. Some scientists are open minded, and some students of theology too.

I'd argue that what you're calling an "axiom" in theology amounts to a hypothesis in "science". The LCDM model of cosmology, or the QM model of gravity is akin to an "axiom".

JackRT · Jun 13, 2017

klutedavid said:
Hello Jack.

A deity can be observed, Jesus was observed, Jesus was deity!

This statement is entirely subjective and extremely debatable.

Science should never use the term, 'infinite', as infinite means an unbounded entity.
Any entity that cannot be measured cannot be understood by the scientific methodology.

As a physicist, I agree with this.

The concept of infinite never belonged in mathematics either, as mathematics is based on bounded, finite numbers. All sets of numbers must be bounded by definition.

As a mathematician, I disagree. Infinity is a concept not a number. As a concept infinity has a long and honoured and extremely useful role in mathematics. Without it, the Calculus would be impossible.

Freodin · Jun 13, 2017

Michael said:
Only EU/PC theory is restricted to empirically demonstrated claims, so it's not like it's even particularly congruent with either of the other two cosmology claims. I don't know of any observations of "gravitons" for that matter, so even gravity theories (plural) are possible and they may not be resolvable by ordinary means.

EU/PC theory is not restricted to empirically demonstrated claims. It extrapolates just in the same way as any other theory does... and I do not know of any observations that could support these extrapolations as well.

So?

In my experience, an individual who tends to "hold belief" in one preferred cosmology theory (or one specific gravity theory) tends to reject other options. They "could" obviously entertain and explore other options if they were so inclined, but that would appear to be the exception rather than the rule. Most M-theory proponents probably haven't even read Alfven's work for instance, even if they do have a pretty good grasp of LCDM.

They are humans. So what?

Sorry about that. I caught my mistake (omission) and I edited and fixed it, but evidently not before you started to respond. My apologies. God as nature could imply either Panentheism or Pantheism, but only one of them would necessarily 'predict' a direct God/human interaction. Sorry for the confusion.

"God as nature" in a panentheistic way would simply expand the concept of "nature" to the usually "not-natural" component of God in panentheism, and thus would make it pantheism.

From my perspective that's like suggesting that humans are extra-natural by virtue of the fact that billions of neutrinos flow though them all the time. Unless you're going to describe "awareness" as being "extra-natural", there's nothing particularly extra-natural about ascribing awareness to the circuity of spacetime.

Neutrinos and humans are independent entities, basically. That is a categorical problem when you define "God as nature". You need to define something that is "not-nature" for relationships to work.

That depends on what one means by the term "nature". We're all composed of the very same three basic building blocks, specifically electrons, neutrons and protons arranged in some particular order.

So what do you mean by the term "nature"? "Something composed of basic building blocks"? That would result in the categorical problem that I mentioned. Everything would be "nature"... and everything cannot have a relationship with itself.

That doesn't sound very complete from my perspective, it sounds more like a testable hypothesis from where I sit. From my perspective God is constantly changing over time. Different axioms for different folks I suppose.

If it is an axiom, it is by definition not testable. You can have different set of axioms building consistent systems... it works very well in mathematics. But that is why is distinguished them from "dogma"... because of Ygrene's use of "the truth".

Well, theology is a bit like science or religion IMO. It really depends on how one 'practices' theology or science. Some scientists are open minded, and some students of theology too.

If you say so. It would be nice if you would structure your own position accordingly.

I'd argue that what you're calling an "axiom" in theology amounts to a hypothesis in "science". The LCDM model of cosmology, or the QM model of gravity is akin to an "axiom".

You would be wrong to argue that. I might not be the mathematician that Ygrene is, but I am enough of a mathematician to know what an axiom is. Natural sciences don't work from axioms. The term "hypothesis" would be correct, or the term "premise".

The difference is: hypotheses or premises are open to change. Axioms are not.

klutedavid · Jun 13, 2017

Hello Jack.

This statement is entirely subjective and extremely debatable.

Objective not subjective.

As a physicist, I agree with this.

Thank you for your agreement.

As a mathematician, I disagree. Infinity is a concept not a number. As a concept infinity has a long and honoured and extremely useful role in mathematics. Without it, the Calculus would be impossible.

Infinity is indeed a concept, a misunderstood concept. Yet the basis of measurement itself is a finite methodology. All measurement by definition is finite, counting numbers are finite entities. One can approach infinity using mathematical criteria, but one may never reach infinity. There cannot be a series of counting numbers that can be considered infinite, that is a contradiction in the definitions. Bounded means bounded, finite means always finite.

Curves can tend towards infinity, curves can approach infinity, but curves never reach infinity. All curves are finite constructions, all curves must by definition be finite. If a curve has a minimum of two points in any defined axis. Then all points on that curve are logically, finite points. No matter how far you draw the curve it must always be defined in a numerical sense against bounded numerical axis.

Infinity is not a numerical entity, hence infinity, cannot be included in a numerical discipline.

Michael · Jun 13, 2017

Freodin said:
EU/PC theory is not restricted to empirically demonstrated claims.

What part of EU/PC theory are you claiming actually deviates from any other branch of empirical physics, including the standard particle physics model?

It extrapolates just in the same way as any other theory does... and I do not know of any observations that could support these extrapolations as well.

So?

Well, all cosmology theories will necessarily lack empirical 'control' mechanisms by definition, so some amount of subjective "interpretation" will be necessary and some scaling factors will be required, but that's distinctly different from positing *new* forms of matter and energy in space that have never been observed in the lab.

They are humans. So what?

So the same problems with metaphysics that occur in religion also occur in science. That human factor is the whole point.

"God as nature" in a panentheistic way would simply expand the concept of "nature" to the usually "not-natural" component of God in panentheism, and thus would make it pantheism.

That statement makes no sense to me. The primary difference between Panentheism and Pantheism is that Pantheism doesn't necessarily imply a *personal* interaction process between God and man.

Neutrinos and humans are independent entities, basically. That is a categorical problem when you define "God as nature". You need to define something that is "not-nature" for relationships to work.

Well, I probably don't emit neutrinos so let's try this at the level of electrons, neutrons and protons. How am I separate from nature?

So what do you mean by the term "nature"? "Something composed of basic building blocks"? That would result in the categorical problem that I mentioned. Everything would be "nature"... and everything cannot have a relationship with itself.

Sure it can. Everything *does* have a relationship with itself from my perspective. I'm made of the same building blocks as everyone and everything else in nature.

If it is an axiom, it is by definition not testable.

Doesn't that make the "space expansion' claim an axiom? How can I "test" that claim in controlled experimentation? Lots of things might cause photon redshift over distance, most notably inelastic scattering in plasma, and moving *objects*.

You can have different set of axioms building consistent systems... it works very well in mathematics. But that is why is distinguished them from "dogma"... because of Ygrene's use of "the truth".

Well, I can't speak to "the truth" comments. The closest thing to something like that in physics are "laws", which however can be overturned by new evidence.

If you say so. It would be nice if you would structure your own position accordingly.

As far as I know, I did.

You would be wrong to argue that. I might not be the mathematician that Ygrene is, but I am enough of a mathematician to know what an axiom is. Natural sciences don't work from axioms. The term "hypothesis" would be correct, or the term "premise".

This is a bit confusing because we're talking about mathematics, theology and 'science' in general. I don't see the term "axioms" used often in either science or religion, just mathematics.

The difference is: hypotheses or premises are open to change. Axioms are not.

Even laws of physics are open to change, so if you're using the term "axiom" in relationship to science or religion, you cannot use a mathematical term to describe them. You might be able to get away with claiming that "God exists" is an axiom for many people, but people do change from theism to atheism, and atheism to theism so even that doesn't seem to necessarily be an "axiom" for many individuals.

Ygrene Imref · Jun 13, 2017

Freodin said:
But there is only the natural, remember? Consistent natures?

So what kind of different qualifications are there? Only that what can be "measured"? Weighted and quantified?

If you think this, it is you who don't know how science works.

That, I would say, is a problem with the laypersons, not with academic science.

Science is the system. The academia is also a system... a system that works within the system of science.

"Die Wissenschaft ist ein System der Erkenntnisse über die wesentlichen Eigenschaften, kausalen Zusammenhänge und Gesetzmäßigkeiten der Natur, Technik, Gesellschaft und des Denkens, das in Form von Begriffen, Kategorien, Maßbestimmungen, Gesetzen, Theorien und Hypothesen fixiert wird." (Georg Klaus, Manfred Buhr
(Hrsg.): Philosophisches Wörterbuch. 11. Aufl., Leipzig 1975.)
(Science is a system of cognition of the essential properties, causal relations and regularities of nature, technic, society and though, which is fixated in the form of terms, categories, measurements, laws, theories and hypotheses.) (my translation)

Again, a problem of "most people", not science.

That, if you have to admit that one "impossibility" might be possible, other "impossibilities" might be possible as well.

But it seems that you don't entertain this notion.

And you claim to be a mathematician? Really?

I would say that claiming dogma as axiomatic is something a mathematician should never do.

And still you discount the impossibilities that disagree with your "axiomatic" position. That doesn't strike you as weird?

Reading your following paragraph, I must admit that I don't have a clue what your "point" was here. You seem to contradict yourself a little.

You seem to have missed my point... and ignored your own previous points.

So now we again have a distinction between "nature" and "supernature"? I thought there was no "supernatural"... only fields that the "academia" does not study.

But it might surprise you: science is not limited to physics, chemistry and biology. If it exists, and it is "natural", it can be studies. Scientific fields are just convenient labels.

But if something has a "consistent nature", it can be studied.

Again, that is my whole point: if there are demons, poltergeists and ghosts... how do they work? This might not be a question for chemistry or biology... let's make a new scientific field of "ghostology"!

But the question remains: how does it work? Is it consistent? Are there rules, are there the "essential properties, causal relations and regularities of nature" that the above definition states?

If there are, it can be scientifically studied and is not different from physics, chemistry, biology... or physiology, sociology or linguistics. The only difference between poison and demons are how to study them.

Or you can go the other way: admit that science cannot study them, because they don't have this consistent nature... they just "work". Which would support my initial point.

Ok.

joinfree · Jun 13, 2017

Gene2memE said:
......
Tell me, why is it you have the God belief you do? What was the argument or evidence that convinced you?

The mother has prayed and talked, and red from the Holy Fathers. So, it was the God's Grace, which has healed me.

Gene2memE · Jun 13, 2017

joinfree said:
The mother has prayed and talked, and red from the Holy Fathers. So, it was the God's Grace, which has healed me.

So, you believe because your mother indoctrinated you into the beliefs?

DogmaHunter · Jun 14, 2017

AV1611VET said:
Then why are you asking what's wrong with one?

Because someone claimed it was a problem.
So I'm asking about that problem.

DogmaHunter · Jun 14, 2017

Freodin said:
You have to consider what "supernatural" means to those who promote it.

Basically, it is: "A solution that works exactly as I need it to work, without any problems, and without any need to explain it or go into details."

lol, sure.

However, I have this hunge that the "problem" is the "infinite" part.
So I want to get them to explain what the problem is with a "natural infinite" and how that problem doesn't occur in a "supernatural infinite". That explanation is bound to be interesting imo

DogmaHunter · Jun 14, 2017

Ygrene Imref said:
Not if you have experienced it first hand - and there were witnesses around...

Someone witnessed a "supernatural infinite past"?

some of us had the scientific and mathematical mastery to qualify the phenomenon in an objective way

There is a scientific way to objectively determine the supernatural?.
Neat! How does it work?

DogmaHunter · Jun 14, 2017

yeshuaslavejeff said:
It is even easier to be becoming a child of YHWH.

YHWH made everything simple.

Men just hate the truth/ mankind is evil.

Owkay.

You know what's even easier? Being an atheist. You don't have to do or believe anything!

Freodin · Jun 14, 2017

Michael said:
What part of EU/PC theory are you claiming actually deviates from any other branch of empirical physics, including the standard particle physics model?

The yellow one.

Well, all cosmology theories will necessarily lack empirical 'control' mechanisms by definition, so some amount of subjective "interpretation" will be necessary and some scaling factors will be required, but that's distinctly different from positing *new* forms of matter and energy in space that have never been observed in the lab.

Seriously? You claim that your theory is totally empirical, you ask me to point out about "deviations" of EU/PC theory... something I never mentioned or implied... and then you are going how ALL cosmological theories are not completely empirical.

Really?

So the same problems with metaphysics that occur in religion also occur in science. That human factor is the whole point.

No, it is not the same problem. That is the whole point.
The problem with the "human factor" exists. But while in one system this problem is recognized and tried to alleviate, the other system ignores / plays it down.

That statement makes no sense to me. The primary difference between Panentheism and Pantheism is that Pantheism doesn't necessarily imply a *personal* interaction process between God and man.

This is the primary difference? Not the "transcendent" part that is included in Panentheism, but not in Pantheism? Wow, I never knew that!

But I have to ask: how does Panentheism necessarily imply a "personal" interaction process between God and man?

Well, I probably don't emit neutrinos so let's try this at the level of electrons, neutrons and protons. How am I separate from nature?

You are not. That is the point.

Sure it can. Everything *does* have a relationship with itself from my perspective. I'm made of the same building blocks as everyone and everything else in nature.

So, what do you mean by the term "nature"?
"God is nature"... that is the starting point. So, what is "not-nature"? Are these "building blocks" nature? Are you nature?

Doesn't that make the "space expansion' claim an axiom?

No. Every axiom is untestable, but not everything untestable is an axiom. That is not too difficult to understand, is it?`

How can I "test" that claim in controlled experimentation? Lots of things might cause photon redshift over distance, most notably inelastic scattering in plasma, and moving *objects*.

Let's see... "the effect is seen, the cause might be not, but we can extrapolate the cause from the effect, bla bla bla."

Well, I can't speak to "the truth" comments. The closest thing to something like that in physics are "laws", which however can be overturned by new evidence.

There you have it.

As far as I know, I did.

Yeah, sure.

This is a bit confusing because we're talking about mathematics, theology and 'science' in general. I don't see the term "axioms" used often in either science or religion, just mathematics.

Well, I didn't introduce this term into the debate. Ygrene did, and, IMO, he did it incorrectly. Take it up with him, not me.

Even laws of physics are open to change, so if you're using the term "axiom" in relationship to science or religion, you cannot use a mathematical term to describe them. You might be able to get away with claiming that "God exists" is an axiom for many people, but people do change from theism to atheism, and atheism to theism so even that doesn't seem to necessarily be an "axiom" for many individuals.

See above. If you think you need to chide me for using a term, when the only occurance I used it was to critizise a poster who incorrectly in a religious setting, you are doing something wrong.

def · Jun 14, 2017

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

Physics is based on reductionist principles (e.g Newtonian principles), and the principles work well because the whole is the sum of its parts.

The same reductionist principles are applied to theology. But, the Bible is a complex entity, and reductionist principles fail badly because the "whole is more than the sum of its parts". In other words, wrong strategies used.

Secondly, no matter how hard we try, the meaning of some words cannot be precisely define, for example, justification and grace. Preferred meanings are taken, and study proceed. Different meanings lead to different doctrines, arguments aplenty, and Christianity is in chaos.

quatona · Jun 14, 2017

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

Because physics have a detailed epistemological method, and theology hasn´t?

joinfree · Jun 14, 2017

DogmaHunter said:
Owkay.

You know what's even easier? Being an atheist. You don't have to do or believe anything!

Why then so much time is spent and so much (fake?) prayers are made in the church of Flying Spaghetti Monster?

quatona · Jun 14, 2017

joinfree said:
Why then so much time is spent and so much (fake?) prayers are made in the church of Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Which part of "do not have to believe" do you find hard to understand?

joinfree · Jun 14, 2017

quatona said:
Because physics have a detailed epistemological method, and theology hasn´t?

Science is not its methods. The methods are the convenient tools of Science. But the Science is the Quest For Truth with all sinless methods and sinless ways.

joinfree · Jun 14, 2017

quatona said:
Which part of "do not have to believe" do you find hard to understand?

To practice PAGANISM no faith is necessary.

quatona · Jun 14, 2017

joinfree said:
To practice PAGANISM no faith is necessary.

Your point being?

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

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Code Monkey

Devout believer in a theologically different God

Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

"God"? What do you mean??

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency