[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]groo wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, thought this was about the potentially (if verified) significant physics news. My bad.[/quote]
The tangent TBG were discussing is or can be related to physics because we are actually talking about the origins of the laws (and theories) of physics - if you stop and think about it.
I will also interject that the concepts surrounding varying speeds of light could very well be instrumental in explaining the seemingly vast age and limits of the universe with the special creation theory.
Along that line it also brings up the question, MUST the presently accepted laws of physics have ALWAYS applied in the past and if so who gets to make that decision and why?
EVERYTHING we think we know about ANYTHING rests on assumptions. Unprovable assumptions. EVERYTHING.[/quote]
This last bit is just for empirical fields. Some things can be proven in the non empirical fields like math. Though propositions that are certain with enough probability are all always readily assumed to be true by everyone until demonstrated false in the empirical sciences. Some people hold a belief in god to be this type of knowledge…but they wouldn’t try to stretch this to a belief in a particular religion…or at least not properly.
So there are more but to be close enough for government work. We have knowledge that is true by definition. These are things like arithmetic. Problems for these types of systems are that there isn’t a solid understanding of what a number is say and while these systems are generally held to be accurate when describing the real world they are not equivalent to it.
We have empirical knowledge. These are statements that have proven to be true again and again. Largely most scientific claims. But the scientific method allows for these descriptions to be wrong and to search for a better description if the empirical evidence doesn’t match. None of these claims are ever 100 percent proven. They are just assumed to be true with a high probability. All scientists would admit this…I am not sure why its even causing an issue.
Some people purport to have supernatural knowledge. Divine inspiration. It is certainly logically possible that this type of knowledge channel could exist. This is the type of knowledge that religious claims are.
Regardless of whether or not I think a religious claim is accurate its unfair to try to subject it to empirical testing. Or to claim its not as accurate a system as arithmetic say since its not that type of knowledge either. Though its just as cheap for a believer to hide behind a shallow claim that we only know scientific facts to a high degree of probability…since its demonstrable they too believe these facts at least solipsitically.
Though as its obvious to see that there are a multitude of religions out there and its unlikely that all of them are a true depiction of the way things actually are. So clearly there is no agreement in supernatural knowledge and the standard of knowing is simply I believe this to be true.
When I was a Christian…a poor one by any standard I am sure, I never would have cared to debate the literal truth of the bible. If I believe in an all powerful all good creative force, why is it so hard to think such a being wouldn’t set up the process of evolution? What would be the point of fake aging the earth when it would be well within the being’s power to just start it up and let time play out…particularly in the case of an eternal being who is outside of time and for whom things like days wouldn’t have any kind of earthly meaning. The bible wasn’t meant to be the system of arithmetic don’t feel the need to defend the fact that its completely nonsensical that two separate and contradictory stories of creation occur in genesis alone.
While I love to argue, of course physics is wrong science is wrong all the time if there were ever a day that science was completely right what a boring world it would be. Science is really the question “What is?” It just tries to describe the natural universe as accurately as it can. It says nothing about the supernatural.
Religious knowledge is not so much concerned with the What in my opinion as the Why? A to be honest much greater question and problem. This is why there are so many atheists that deliberately seek out and attack the religious. Their very own nihilism causes them no end of despair and the thought that someone else is living less tragically bothers them to no end. That is why I consider it to be nothing more than being a pure prick to go into a thread that is solely religious in its nature amongst true believers and to challenge their assertions. Now if its a discussion on the nature of the universe or morality something that can touch on religion I think its fair game to point out religion’s flaws and the problems that it causes. Or in a thread that is claiming science to be wrong, a title which both shows a disturbing trend in some engineers, and a deep lack of understanding of the scientific method, religion is fair game.
Also its a terrible thing for things like creationism which would be supernatural knowledge to be taught in schools. Evolution is both fact and hypothesis would be a fair assessment of the scientific view. While its agreed that organisms evolve there is still debate to the specific process or processes involved. Creationism is not necessarily in opposition to this unless someone were to take a mule-headed view that 7 days is 7 days and every organism sprang to life in exactly the state it is today more or less. It is very probable that evolution in some form occurred. To deny this for a supernatural truth that was likely meant to be taken metaphorically does teaching our children a grave disservice.
[/quote]
You wandered into all sorts of irrelevancies that don’t belong in this thread.
At the risk of encouraging this behavior I must laugh at your subjective characterization of what is “terrible.”[/quote]
Make it wrong if you like. Or improper. Creationism is a religious claim. By its very nature supernatural. It has no place in the realm of science. Its improper to claim it as empirical knowledge.
I was trying to lay out a very simple yet long-winded epistemology. But I can cut to the chase if you like. The bible contains no empirical knowledge. It is easily proven false and contradictory so its not true a priori. What type of knowledge would you purport it gives us? Since it gives us nothing empirical or proves nothing a priori?
[/quote]
I gotta say. I agree with most of what you said. What I didn’t really is a matter of splitting hairs. But I will repeat what I said earlier in that religion and science at their core answer different fundamental philosophical questions. It’s a very shallow take to say one invalidates the other, because that’s not true. The Bible deals with spiritual truth. Science deal with empirical probabilities. There are intersections between the two, but being a fan of both, I see compliment, not contradiction.
And the title of the thread was meant to be inflammatory to draw people to the discussion. Though the discovery, if true, has serious implications on current theories about the universe.
But it may also solve a lot of problems in the end. And who knows, there may be an implication as well where the science and religion does intersect.
