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

[AV1611VET]

Feel free to notify me when you are done preaching and want to discuss the question you raised in the OP.

Woa there, chief!

After the sermon comes the invitation.

You know ... to give you a chance to respond to the Holy Spirit's call.

 

[quatona]

Woa there, chief!

After the sermon comes the invitation.

You know ... to give you a chance to respond to the Holy Spirit's call.

If the Holy Spirit needs and /or uses you guys as his invitors, then...ah, forget it.

 

[AV1611VET]

If the Holy Spirit needs and /or uses you guys as his invitors, then...ah, forget it.

Our level of quality bothers you, doesn't it?

After all, does "you guys" include Ken Ham, Kent Hovind, Pat Robertson, Jim Jo... (skip him), Billy Graham, David Ko... (okay, skip him), Billy Sunday, Hal Lindsey, and anyone else one can think of?

I suspect you guys will find "poor quality" with anyone and everyone.

After all, you guys have no problem with finding poor quality with God ... do you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sounds like you're having a wishful thinking. Can someone give us the link to the Steven's paper?

Here you go:

Chronology Protection Conjecture
"It has been suggested that an advanced civilization might have the technology to warp spacetime so that closed timelike curves would appear, allowing travel into the past. This paper examines this possibility in the case that the causality violations appear in a finite region of spacetime without curvature singularities. There will be a Cauchy horizon that is compactly generated and that in general contains one or more closed null geodesics which will be incomplete. One can define geometrical quantities that measure the Lorentz boost and area increase on going round these closed null geodesics. If the causality violation developed from a noncompact initial surface, the averaged weak energy condition must be violated on the Cauchy horizon. This shows that one cannot create closed timelike curves with finite lengths of cosmic string. Even if violations of the weak energy condition are allowed by quantum theory, the expectation value of the energy-momentum tensor would get very large if timelike curves become almost closed. It seems the back reaction would prevent closed timelike curves from appearing. These results strongly support the chronology protection conjecture: The laws of physics do not allow the appearance of closed timelike curves." [The actual paper].​

 

[quatona]

After all, does "you guys" include

"You guys" meant to include you and the thread opener (i.e. the guys who started preaching at me in this thread upon my response to the thread question). Sorry for being unprecise.

After all, you guys have no problem with finding poor quality with God ... do you?

Can´t speak for the other guys you have in mind, but I personally don´t believe that there´s a God, so N/N.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Someone witnessed a "supernatural infinite past"?



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

...
There is always a scientific way to objectively determine something. There is not always an academic way to objectively determine something. Science is pure; everyone practices science every day of their life. "Scientia" is Latin for knowledge, not truth.

I said exactly what I meant. If you are trying to make a point about something I said which you vehemently do not agree with, then why not just say that?

This is why I stopped conversing with other people, because after a while their responses are simply monstrosities of literary ridicule - not actual intellectual disagreement without vectors of incredulity expressed. It isnt a concession. And, I was being serious when I responded.

Cheers.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I understand what your saying. Some time ago 3 physicist won the Nobel prize for their "proof" that the expansion of the universe was increasing over time. In 2016 ,with much more data to go on , the Oxford University Physics Department and Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen proved that wrong. Meaning there is now "proof" contradicting the "proof" that won 3 people the Nobel prize. Let me add this link if you want to read up on it.
Accelerating expansion of the universe - Wikipedia
Furthermore I made a video not long ago claiming to have "proof" that a specific bible prophecy was in fact coming true and it even pertains to the expanding universe. Let me add a link to that video.

The Nobel prize people had faith that the proof was true but it turns out it wasn't. I personally have no faith in the proofs of evolution theory. The Holy Bible is proof for approximately 2.4 billion people worldwide. I posted a video stating there was proof that bible prophecy is coming true.

I don't know who your actually talking about stating that Christians don't have proof but that's wrong. The point being is that most if not all proof requires faith.

Interesting...

 

[Skreeper]

The pain and the suffering AFTER dying, in the resurrection to shame and judgment , for each one who does not repent ,

would take thousands of books(maybe more than that) to describe,

being millions of times worse(maybe more) than mankind's worse holocausts and tortures over the last 6000 years, .

So, not doing anything is (or seems) easy,
....... for now.

"woe to those who are at ease now", ...... YHWH'S WORD.

Sounds lovely. Can I get a ticket for this wild ride?

 

[Mountainmike]

Easy. Because science is not what you think,

It is an axiomatic model, which doesn't exist in the physical world, only in people's heads. entirely consistent only with itself.. From several axioms others are developed. The proofs such as they are, are in people's heads, on computers and paper. Not in the universe.

It models, it does not explain,

But it is not the world, nor is it an underpinning of it, it is just a model , of things which repeat or are repeatable in the limited dimensions that projects into our senses, which fits more or less well.

That fit only has arguments not proof.

To understand Start with real ohms law. Not the mistake taught ubiquitously by most early stage physics teachers, and you will see the difference

V=IR is not a law,and cannot be proven,
Because it is just an apriori definition of resistance in the axiomatic model.

So it is not even an equation in mathematical sense, but it is an "identity"
Better expressed as R " identically equal to" V/I
Part of the axiomatic model. A game on paper,
Nothing to do with universe,

Ohms law is that for a limited range of materials and limited temperatures, currents and voltages, resistance is reasonably constant.
So not very fundamental or proven, just a useful argument, so long as you are careful when you use it, and you don't push it too hard! I can show you lots of materials that don't obey ohms law, indeed most practical materials don't, in extreme conditions.

So speaks a postgrad , and one time professional mathematician and physicist.

 

[joinfree]

..... From several axioms others are developed. The proofs such as they are, are in people's heads, on computers and paper. Not in the universe. ......

The "paper" proofs are essentially the finding the relationships between the Standards of Metrology. So, the proofs must correspond to Universe.

 

[DogmaHunter]

...
There is always a scientific way to objectively determine something. There is not always an academic way to objectively determine something.

What's the difference?

Science is pure; everyone practices science every day of their life. "Scientia" is Latin for knowledge, not truth.

Let's not get into silly semantics by attempting to use the word "science" as meaning something differently then the practice of scientific investigation.

I said exactly what I meant. If you are trying to make a point about something I said which you vehemently do not agree with, then why not just say that?

You made points, I asked questions about that.
It's fine if you are unwilling to answer them - but then just say so.

This is why I stopped conversing with other people, because after a while their responses are simply monstrosities of literary ridicule - not actual intellectual disagreement without vectors of incredulity expressed. It isnt a concession. And, I was being serious when I responded.

I was being serious when I asked my questions.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

What's the difference?



Let's not get into silly semantics by attempting to use the word "science" as meaning something differently then the practice of scientific investigation.



You made points, I asked questions about that.
It's fine if you are unwilling to answer them - but then just say so.



I was being serious when I asked my questions.

If you don't know the difference between science and academia, and you keep using "semantics" as an argumentative demerit, then we are done.

Cheers.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

There is a difference between science and academia. It is not semantics; science is pure, while academia (the formal practice) is not. A scientist is anyone who works toward understanding and mastery of natural phemonena. An academic applies science to formalism in practice, logic and credulity. Science is to law, as lawyer is to academic.

Academia, not science, is responsible for the ethical, moral and humane application of scientific method. It is this application that qualitatively separates academia from science - mainly due to the obligations thereof. Academia fails often, while science just is. Academia is an institution of thought; it is not limited to science.

http://news.stanford.edu/2015/11/16/fraud-science-papers-111615

“Science fraud is of increasing concern in academia, and automatic tools for identifying fraud might be useful,” Hancock said. “But much more research is needed before considering this kind of approach. Obviously, there is a very high error rate that would need to be improved, but also science is based on trust, and introducing a ‘fraud detection’ tool into the publication process might undermine that trust.”



Academia’s seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud


British academia: BDS lies, intimidation and violence

"The problem lies with the closing of the academic mind in Britain linked to its rejection of Jewish thought and expression. When academic minds refuse to listen, the campus becomes a place of dogma. When it becomes a place of dogma it is no longer academia, a place of meeting of minds and open conversation. It is a harm inflicted upon itself, more than upon us."
​

There is a clear difference between academia, and science - without the neophyte jump to call it a semantics argument.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Dp

 

[DogmaHunter]

If you don't know the difference between science and academia

You made a statement about both in specific context. That context being that there is ALWAYS a "scientific way" but that that isn't true for the "academic way".

I'm not sure exactly what you meant by that, so I'm asking you to explain the difference, so that I can understand what you are saying.

If anything, you should be glad that I'm askin you to clarify instead of simply assuming what you meant by it. There's no reason for ranting about it.

, and you keep using "semantics" as an argumentative demerit, then we are done.

I didn't use it as an "argumentative demerit". I was merely clarifying that in context of this conversation "science" means "the practice of scientific investigation". So it is irrelevant what the historical context / origins of the word is.

As long as we are clear about the subject of discussion, we can actually have a conversation.

But it seems you don't want a conversation, seeing as how you seemingly are desperatly seeking excuses to stop conversing.

 

[DogmaHunter]

There is a difference between science and academia. It is not semantics; science is pure, while academia (the formal practice) is not. A scientist is anyone who works toward understanding and mastery of natural phemonena. An academic applies science to formalism in practice, logic and credulity. Science is to law, as lawyer is to academic.

Academia, not science, is responsible for the ethical, moral and humane application of scientific method. It is this application that qualitatively separates academia from science - mainly due to the obligations thereof. Academia fails often, while science just is. Academia is an institution of thought; it is not limited to science.

http://news.stanford.edu/2015/11/16/fraud-science-papers-111615

“Science fraud is of increasing concern in academia, and automatic tools for identifying fraud might be useful,” Hancock said. “But much more research is needed before considering this kind of approach. Obviously, there is a very high error rate that would need to be improved, but also science is based on trust, and introducing a ‘fraud detection’ tool into the publication process might undermine that trust.”



Academia’s seamier side: Lying, cheating and fraud


British academia: BDS lies, intimidation and violence

"The problem lies with the closing of the academic mind in Britain linked to its rejection of Jewish thought and expression. When academic minds refuse to listen, the campus becomes a place of dogma. When it becomes a place of dogma it is no longer academia, a place of meeting of minds and open conversation. It is a harm inflicted upon itself, more than upon us."
​

There is a clear difference between academia, and science - without the neophyte jump to call it a semantics argument.

Awesome.

Now back to the point at hand....

How does this distinction support the idea that supernatural events can be scientifically determined? You know, like you claimed in post 88 and which I questioned in post 131, after which you felt the need to start about "science" vs "academia", without actually answering my question?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Awesome.

Now back to the point at hand....

How does this distinction support the idea that supernatural events can be scientifically determined? You know, like you claimed in post 88 and which I questioned in post 131, after which you felt the need to start about "science" vs "academia", without actually answering my question?

Right.

You don't see any difference between academia and science, so I never tried to address it - mainly because those who know the difference know, then, how science is not an instiution that requires legitimacy.

When you try to turn on your TV, and you realize it doesn't work, you go through the scientific method - even testing over and over - until you realize the solution if there is one. It is the same way with "supernatural" phenomenon: the "supernatural" responds to stimuli, repetition, and patterns. You don't need academia to test supernature. Academia does not study the supernatural.

I am not putting up what I did to test, and then ascertain and remove the supernatural oppression (the claim that if I didn't do anything, and waited for academia to treat it as a real issue, then I would be seriously injured, or dead) because the practices used may violate the rules here.

And, I am not NOT answering your questions, you seem to be ignoring key implications critically enveloped in pith. That may be my fault, but I can't keep saying the same exact thing, whilst also following up with a complete analysis and description of every phrase I used, and why I used them. That is a distraction from the point - that science and academia are not the same entity, and you can test the supernatural with scientific means (especially understanding science =/= academia.)


Now that I have answered your question according to your needs (whether satisfactory or otherwise,) I am going to stop here. Cheers.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You don't see any difference between academia and science, so I never tried to address it

I didn't say that. I asked you about the difference because it wasn't clear to me why the distinction is relevant in context of you claiming that supernatural events can scientifically be determined. And I'm still waiting on you to clarify that claim.

When you try to turn on your TV, and you realize it doesn't work, you go through the scientific method - even testing over and over - until you realize the solution if there is one. It is the same way with "supernatural" phenomenon: the "supernatural" responds to stimuli, repetition, and patterns. You don't need academia to test supernature. Academia does not study the supernatural.

How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?

I am not putting up what I did to test, and then ascertain and remove the supernatural oppression (the claim that if I didn't do anything, and waited for academia to treat it as a real issue, then I would be seriously injured, or dead) because the practices used may violate the rules here.

How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?

And, I am not NOT answering your questions, you seem to be ignoring key implications critically enveloped in pith. That may be my fault, but I can't keep saying the same exact thing, whilst also following up with a complete analysis and description of every phrase I used, and why I used them. That is a distraction from the point - that science and academia are not the same entity, and you can test the supernatural with scientific means (especially understanding science =/= academia.)

You're the one that brought up the whole "science vs academia" in the first place - and it's still completely unclear why it is relevant in context of the point of discussion.

That point of discussion being:


How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?

Now that I have answered your question according to your needs (whether satisfactory or otherwise,) I am going to stop here. Cheers.

No, you still haven't answered the question:


How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I didn't say that. I asked you about the difference because it wasn't clear to me why the distinction is relevant in context of you claiming that supernatural events can scientifically be determined. And I'm still waiting on you to clarify that claim.



How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?




How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?



You're the one that brought up the whole "science vs academia" in the first place - and it's still completely unclear why it is relevant in context of the point of discussion.

That point of discussion being:


How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?



No, you still haven't answered the question:


How can the supernatural be determined scientifically, like you claimed it can?

I am not putting up what I did to test, and then ascertain and remove the supernatural oppression (the claim that if I didn't do anything, and waited for academia to treat it as a real issue, then I would be seriously injured, or dead) because the practices used may violate the rules here.

This is why I talked about scientific method in simple things as turning on the TV. You can run live, or controlled experiments to ascertain the intelligence and properties of supernatural phenomena. It is also why I said if you cannot see the difference between academia, and science, then we may as well end: anything and everything can be scientifically studied; we do it everyday. Academia is an institution; science and academia are not the same thing.



If you want an academic way to do that in the lab, you won't find it, because academia does not entertain or study fringe like poltergeists, archons, or psionic activity - at least, not in institutions and companies with public and governmentfunding.

Once again, I am not sharing how I prevented archons poltergeists, kinetic assault, and psionic activity because it is against the rules. Ultimately, what kept then away was Christ, but we utelized several methods, and recorded our progress. We formed a hypothesis, gathered our materials, followed a strict procedure, discussed the results with each other, and came to a conclusion about the phenomenon together. We repeated steps 1-5 several times.

 

[lesliedellow]

Physics doesn't have proofs. It has falsifiable theories, which my, in fact, be falsified given time.

There are arguments in science as well, and they arise for the same reason that they arise in theology. Namely that the data may be capable of more than one interpretation.