Christians of T-Nation

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
248

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Not having real world proof would make theoretical science a lot like religion in my opinion. =0)

The difference is that religion does not need a specific foundation to exist. Whether experiment follows theory or precedes it science still has the foundation of observation.

“Our wildest surmise with respect to the eternal is confirmed by the observable world through our senses.”

Did a scientist say this? Or a theologian? Or a devote Catholic?[/quote]

All three?

I don’t agree with that statement.

249

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
That’s exactly my point, their is no true measurable or quantifiable anything. The whole concept of measurement and quantification is flawed from a philosophical standpoint.

That is not true. For example, there is a definite measure of a stones weight it is just that it is impossible to measure it without any uncertainty. These are limits of engineering though. A simple balance scale can tell us when something weighs the same as something else but our accuracy of measurement will only be in terms of the chosen unit of comparison.

When deciding on the required accuracy needed to do something specific it is a question of whether one is throwing horseshoes or hand-grenades.[/quote]

If there is no direct carryover between the real world and physics theory, then it is physics thats flawed, not the real world.

I thought it was the point of quantum mechanics that no things are directly measurable.

All things travel in wave forms correct? Lets say you throw a ball to your kid at exactly X velocity and you are in a vacuum. Take away all imperfection of application. After Y seconds where will the ball be?

According to quantum there is no exact answer. The only thing it does is point to a probability curve and tell me what the likelihood of it being at certain locations are. There is error built into the theory, not just the application.

250

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
There is error built into the theory, not just the application.[/quote]

Yes, physics is flawed and not a complete picture of the universe. To that there is no disagreement but we have to agree that we know and understand certain phenomena to which other phenomena are built.

Theoreticians are not really scientists – they are mathematicians. Experimentalists are scientists. Furthermore, even theoreticians understand that there is not complete theory which is why you will always see equations, for example, that make use of “+ C” to account for all the unknowable other stuff.

The question still remains, are approximations not a display of understanding and hence not considered knowledge?

251

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
There is error built into the theory, not just the application.

Yes, physics is flawed and not a complete picture of the universe. To that there is no disagreement but we have to agree that we know and understand certain phenomena to which other phenomena are built.

Theoreticians are not really scientists – they are mathematicians. Experimentalists are scientists. Furthermore, even theoreticians understand that there is not complete theory which is why you will always see equations, for example, that make use of “+ C” to account for all the unknowable other stuff.

The question still remains, are approximations not a display of understanding and hence not considered knowledge?[/quote]

I think they are a type of understanding, but not the same thing religion claims to offer. I simply don’t see science and religion as competing for discovery and explanation in the same fields. Hence, one can’t be a real replacement for the other.

I also think that things can be used and applied without understanding them. Cavemen used fire without understanding oxidation and energy release mechanisms. Did they really understand fire? I don’t think so. But the same holds true today at the foundation of all our scientific “laws”.

That +C many times gets larger than the result of the calculation in engineering though. I find myself questioning why I even calculated something when, at the end, I have multiply by a safety factor of 10.

In the end, I’m just glad I got a physicist to admit physics is flawed. I’m of the opinion that the further science develops the more logical holes we’ll find. It’s like constantly making a finer instrument to measure closer and closer, but will never be exact, no mater how fine you make it.

We keep popping quarters into the arcade game, because this just has to be the last level. In truth the architect of the game purposely made it so there is always another level and you always feel you are so close and if we just put in one more quarter we can somehow “win”.

252

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I think they are a type of understanding, but not the same thing religion claims to offer. I simply don’t see science and religion as competing for discovery and explanation in the same fields. Hence, one can’t be a real replacement for the other.[/quote]

I would never suggest that science is a replacement for faith. My earlier analysis was only to say that there is a difference between the two and judgments of science have no place in faith and vice versa.

[quote]
That +C many times gets larger than the result of the calculation in engineering though. I find myself questioning why I even calculated something when, at the end, I have multiply by a safety factor of 10.[/quote]

To an experimentalist we are often happy being able to measure within 2 orders of magnitude of predicted results – so yeah, a factor of 10 isn’t bad as all.

253

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I would never suggest that science is a replacement for faith. My earlier analysis was only to say that there is a difference between the two and judgments of science have no place in faith and vice versa.
[/quote]

I know you didn’t, but many do. For some reason people think that science and logic are at inherent odds with religion when they are asking/answering different questions.

One example is the guy saying there is no way the world was made in 7 days. The flow of time is another one of those scientific labels made up to name something unexplainable. Who is to say these fundamental unknowns have always behaved that way; that these scientific leaps of faith have always been observably true and are forever unchanging? Maybe time flow hasn’t always been the same. Not to mention the shear relativity of what a day was before existence.

254

As a disclosure, my pastor preaches a white separatist message. Meaning he states we shouldn’t move out of the community and live amongst blacks. He also has some interesting ideas about cancer being unleashed upon whites, by black scientists. My church has also given an award to David Duke.

I just wanted to get that out in the open. And though I’ve attended for 20 years, I’m just there for the sense of community (we have coffee and pie together after church).

255

[quote]Sloth wrote:
As a disclosure, my pastor preaches a white separatist message. Meaning he states we shouldn’t move out of the community and live amongst blacks. He also has some interesting ideas about cancer being unleashed upon whites, by black scientists. My church has also given an award to David Duke.

I just wanted to get that out in the open. And though I’ve attended for 20 years, I’m just there for the sense of community (we have coffee and pie together after church).[/quote]

As if religion and science wasn’t enough for one thread, politics, yay!

256

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
One example is the guy saying there is no way the world was made in 7 days. The flow of time is another one of those scientific labels made up to name something unexplainable. Who is to say these fundamental unknowns have always behaved that way; that these scientific leaps of faith have always been observably true and are forever unchanging? Maybe time flow hasn’t always been the same. Not to mention the shear relativity of what a day was before existence.[/quote]

Time doesn’t really flow it is a dimension like height, width, and breadth. It is an abstract concept that is measured in terms of change. It really depends on the object that changes that determines how our concept of time is formed. To add even more complexity special relativity tells us the mark of time is dependent on how fast we are moving relative to c.

The concept of a day does not mean anything before the formation of the the earth and sun and the rotation necessary to mark that cycle.

257

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
One example is the guy saying there is no way the world was made in 7 days. The flow of time is another one of those scientific labels made up to name something unexplainable. Who is to say these fundamental unknowns have always behaved that way; that these scientific leaps of faith have always been observably true and are forever unchanging? Maybe time flow hasn’t always been the same. Not to mention the shear relativity of what a day was before existence.

Time doesn’t really flow it is a dimension like height, width, and breadth. It is an abstract concept that is measured in terms of change. It really depends on the object that changes that determines how our concept of time is formed. To add even more complexity special relativity tells us the mark of time is dependent on how fast we are moving relative to c.

The concept of a day does not mean anything before the formation of the the earth and sun and the rotation necessary to mark that cycle.[/quote]

Hight, width and depth are also dependent on perspective according to special relativity. Does this make them abstract?

258

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Hight, width and depth are also dependent on perspective according to special relativity. Does this make them abstract?[/quote]

Yes. Space is also an abstract concept. Even though we typically represent space as having three dimensions it doesn’t really mean anything outside of a chosen frame of reference.

259

I have often wondered if there is a basic correct frame of reference. One, that since the origin of substance has never undergone acceleration. Kind of a point that is truely stationary. When I talk about it with friends, I call it God’s little toe.

260

Wow, I go away for a weekend and this thread goes absolutely bonkers. I mean, even more wrecked than it already was.

I hate the idea of the bait-and-switch performed here by the OP, frankly. In that regard I’m with PRCalDude.

EDIT: deleted because it was pointless.

261

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Axioms do not require evidence because they are untestable. Can you think of one axiom that is not true by definition.
[/quote]

Axioms reflect a certain aspect of human intuition or everyday experience. Peano axioms are accepted BECAUSE they support our everyday thinking about natural numbers.

Axiom about two parallel lines never intersecting is an example of an axiom which is “not true” (sometimes:)).

One can talk about usefulness of axioms, not their validity per se. In a similar fashion, to many people “G-d exists” is a useful axiom (which is self-evident and very intuitive).

ETA: I, personally, don’t think that existence of G-d is self-evident and intuitive, but I can see how it could be such to others.

262

[quote]skor wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Axioms do not require evidence because they are untestable. Can you think of one axiom that is not true by definition.

Axioms reflect a certain aspect of human intuition or everyday experience. Peano axioms are accepted BECAUSE they support our everyday thinking about natural numbers.

Axiom about two parallel lines never intersecting is an example of an axiom which is “not true” (sometimes:)).

One can talk about usefulness of axioms, not there validity per se. In a similar fashion, to many people “G-d exists” is a useful axiom (which is self-evident and very intuitive).[/quote]

I agree with this ^^. Well said.

263

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Wow, I go away for a weekend and this thread goes absolutely bonkers. I mean, even more wrecked than it already was.

I hate the idea of the bait-and-switch performed here by the OP, frankly. In that regard I’m with PRCalDude.

EDIT: deleted because it was pointless.[/quote]

Maybe I’m an idiot (okay, probably), but I really didn’t understand what PR meant by that. What “bait-and-switch”?

264

Oh, the bait and switch goes something along the lines of…

[really excited] hey, are there other christians that enjoy being christians out there?

…Oh you guys aren’t christians…

…well here are the reasons you should become a christian, now.

Basically start with the question, then key up a debate and try to defend/debate others to your point of view.

I dunno if it classifies as a true bait and switch, but as soon as I read the OP, thought “Oh no, that’s over the top and this can’t end well”.

Just smacked of a terrible idea and being fake to me.

265

[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
Wow, I go away for a weekend and this thread goes absolutely bonkers. I mean, even more wrecked than it already was.

I hate the idea of the bait-and-switch performed here by the OP, frankly. In that regard I’m with PRCalDude.

EDIT: deleted because it was pointless.

Maybe I’m an idiot (okay, probably), but I really didn’t understand what PR meant by that. What “bait-and-switch”? [/quote]

As a Roman Catholic, your probably unfamiliar with mainstream “Protestant” evangelicalism in this country. Suffice it to say, everything it does is some sort of effort to treat unbelievers as some sort of novelty project to get them into the pews. It doesn’t matter how they go about it. Expediency is the rule. The Harvest Crusade is a prime example of this.

266

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
Oh, the bait and switch goes something along the lines of…

[really excited] hey, are there other christians that enjoy being christians out there?

…Oh you guys aren’t christians…

…well here are the reasons you should become a christian, now.

Basically start with the question, then key up a debate and try to defend/debate others to your point of view.

I dunno if it classifies as a true bait and switch, but as soon as I read the OP, thought “Oh no, that’s over the top and this can’t end well”.

Just smacked of a terrible idea and being fake to me.[/quote]

Which is why I found Molotov Cocktease’s posting to be so funny.

267

Geez, where did all this science vs religion shit come from. I was just trying to say scientology has just as much credibility as christianity. Give it a thousand years and we’ll all be wondering when the second coming of Tom Cruise will be.