# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  Science is Always False

## Sola_Fide

*Science Is Always False*
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=19




> Not only are scientific laws non-empirical, they must indeed be false. Take for example the law of the pendulum. It states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the pendulums length. But when the scientific presuppositions of this law are examined, it will be found that the pendulum so described must have its weight concentrated at a point, its string must be tensionless, and there must be no friction on its axis. 
> 
> Since obviously no such physical pendulum ever existed, it follows that the law of the pendulum describes imaginary pendulums, and that physical pendulums do not obey the laws of physics. Note especially that the analysis does not separate pendulums under laboratory conditions from pendulums in living-room clocks, and does not conclude that in the laboratory, but not in the living room, the laws of physics hold. The analysis shows that no physical pendulum, no matter how excellent the laboratory, satisfies the scientists requirements. The scientists world is (on pre-Heisenberg theory) perfectly mathematical, but the sense world is not.
> 
> Naturally a great many people, steeped in nineteenth-century scientific traditions, react violently to the idea that science is all false. Did we not make the atom bomb, they say? Does not vaccination prevent smallpox? Cannot we predict the position of Jupiter and an eclipse of the sun? Verified prediction makes it forever ridiculous to attack science. This reaction is, of course, understandable, however irrational it may be. The argument has not attacked science at all; it has insisted that science is extremely useful-though by its own requirements it must be false. The aim nowhere has been to attack science; the aim is to show what science is.
> 
> How science can be useful though false is illustrated in a delightful textbook on inductive logic. Milk fever, the illustration goes, until late in the nineteenth century, was a disease frequently fatal to cows. A veterinarian proposed the theory that it was caused by bacteria in the cows udders. The cure therefore was to disinfect the cow, which the veterinarian proceeded to do by injecting Lugol solution into each teat. The mortality under this treatment fell from a previous ninety percent to thirty. Does not this success full treatment prove that the bacteria were killed and that Lugol cured the disease? Unfortunately another veterinarian was caught without the Lugol solution one day, and he injected plain boiled water. The cow recovered. Had water killed the bacteria? What is worse, it was found later that air could be pumped into the cows udders with equally beneficial results. The original science was wrong, but it cured the cows nonetheless.
> 
> A closer examination of the logic of verification should be made. In the example above, the first veterinarian probably argued: If bacteria cause milk fever, Lugol solution will cure; the disinfectant does cure it; therefore I have verified the hypothesis that bacteria cause milk fever. This argument, as would be explained in a course of deductive logic, is a fallacy. Its invalidity may perhaps be more clearly seen in an artificial example: If a student doggedly works through Platos Republic in Greek, he will know the Greek language; this student knows Greek; therefore he has read Platos Republic. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent, and it is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. If the law of gravitation is true, a freely falling body will have a constant acceleration, and the eclipse will begin at 2:58:03p.m.; but freely falling bodies do have a constant acceleration and the eclipse did begin at 2:58:03 p.m.; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Or, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been discovered; therefore the period table is verified. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding, I lose my appetite; I have lost my appetite; therefore, we had roast turkey for dinner. All these arguments are equally invalid. 
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

It is more accurate to say "fallacious" than "false".  There is more to logic than formal analysis, after all.  The article brings up a good point.  Popular depictions of scientific work would have you believe that the scientist is someone who sits in a lab and formulates hypotheses, tests them, etc.  But scientists make $#@! up all the time.  Einstein came up with general relativity entirely in his head.  Unfortunately, this creative/artistic aspects of the sciences tends to be downplayed to make scientists seem like the most rational/logical beings around, and all but infallible. :/

----------


## Quark

"Not only are scientific laws non-empirical" the text starts with that statement, and then goes on to tell us how science is _ONLY_ empirical and inductive. LOL

----------


## Natural Citizen

Nope...science is not permitted absolute truths. Tolerance of the unknown is a prerequisite in the scientific fields.

Seems that only Religion claims to have all of the answers and that no more questions are required. Is rather arrogant in my opinion but hey...it's their right...I suppose.

----------


## BuddyRey

Another science-vs-religion mental masturbation thread?!

Aren't you guys starting to chafe yet??

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Another science-vs-religion mental masturbation thread?!
> 
> Aren't you guys starting to chafe yet??


This discussion won't last long.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> "Not only are scientific laws non-empirical" the text starts with that statement, and then goes on to tell us how science is _ONLY_ empirical and inductive. LOL


Scientific _laws_ are not observed or discovered, they are chosen.  This is one of the reasons science is always false.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> Scientific _laws_ are not observed or discovered, they are chosen.  This is one of the reasons science is always false.


_non sequitur_

----------


## Quark

> Einstein came up with general relativity entirely in his head.


I wouldn't say it was entirely from Einstein's head, especially since Einstein wasn't the only person to contribute to _Special Relativity_ (General Realtivity was an extension of Special Relativity to non-inertial reference frames, and required a much stronger mathematical framework.) Parts of Special Relativity were because of Einstein's imagination, but the need for a new theory of relativity (to replace Galilean relativity) was there due to the lack of experimental verification for the luminiferous aether. There was much guessing before the constancy of C was realized as the solution to the non-invariance of Maxwell's Equations (which would've otherwise been explained by the aether, if empirical results verified its existence.) This shows us that while the process of formulating hypotheses is very creative (which is what Einstein did with Special Relativity, just as his predecessors predicted a Luminiferous Aether) it is not the crucial piece of science. The crucial piece is the reconciliation of these hypotheses with real-world observations. In fact, in much of science observations precede hypotheses, and they act as a guide to formulate the framework used to make new predictions of empirical phenomena.

----------


## ronpaulfollower999

...lol....

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Another science-vs-religion mental masturbation thread?!
> 
> Aren't you guys starting to chafe yet??


Please do not turn this thread into a religious debate.  This is a thread about the philosophy of science.

----------


## kathy88

> Please do not turn this thread into a religious debate.  This is a thread about the philosophy of science.


Pot, kettle... You posted in the religion subforum. Unless mods set ALL your posts to default there...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> _non sequitur_


It does follow:




> However, in any experiment that goes beyond a students exercise, there is more to be considered. The scientist not only calculates the average, but he also takes the difference between each reading and the average, and calculates the average of these differences to construct a figure denoting variable error. The result of the previous example could be19.3 +/- 01. Suppose now that these repetitions of one measurement are a part of a much more complicated problem designed to determine a law of nature. The problem might be the determination of the law of gravity. As is known, the attraction of gravity, in the Newtonian theory, is directly proportional to the product of two masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. How could this law have been obtained by experimental procedures? It was not and could not have been obtained by measuring a series of lengths and (assuming unit masses) discovering that the value of the force equaled a fraction whose denominator was always the square of the distance. A length cannot be measured. If it could, the experimenter might have discovered that the force between the two masses, when they are a unit distance apart, was 100 units; he might then have measured the force when the two masses were 2 units apart and have discovered that it was 25 units; and a similar measurement at 4 units distance would have given the value of 6.25. The experimenter presumably would then have made a graph and indicated the values so obtained as points on the graph. Measuring 4 units on the x axis, he would have put a dot 6.25 units above it; and at 2 units on the x axis he would have put a dot 25 units above it; and so on. By plotting a curve through these points, the experimenter would have discovered the law of gravity. But as has been seen, the length of a line cannot be measured. The values for the forces therefore will not be numbers like 6.25, but something like 6.25.0043. And since the same difficulty inheres in measuring the distances, the scientist will not have unit distances but other values with variable errors. When these values are transferred to a graph, they cannot be represented by points. On the x axis the scientist will have to measure off 2 units more or less, and on the y axis, 6.25 more or less. It will be necessary to indicate these measurements, not by points, but by rectangular areas. But, as an elementary account of curves would show, through a series of areas, an infinite number of curves may be passed. To be sure, there is also an infinite number of curves that cannot be drawn through these particular areas, and therefore the experimental material definitely rules out an infinite number of equations; but this truth is irrelevant to the present argument. The important thing is that areas allow the possibility of an infinite number of curves; that is, measurements with variable errors allow an infinite number of natural laws. The particular law that the scientist announces to the world is not a discovery forced on him by so-called facts; it is rather a choice from among an infinity of laws all of which enjoy the same experimental basis.
> 
> Thus it is seen that the falsity of science derives directly from its ideal of accuracy. It may be a fact that gold is heavier than water, but it is not a scientific fact; it may be a fact that the longer and the farther a body falls, the faster it goes, but Galileo was not interested in this type of fact. The scientist wants mathematical accuracy; and when he cannot discover it, he makes it. Since he chooses his law from among an infinite number of equally possible laws, the probability that he has chosen the true law is one over infinity, i.e. zero; or, in plain English, the scientist has no chance of hitting upon the real laws of nature. No one doubts that scientific laws are useful: By them the atomic bomb was invented. 
> 
> The point of all this argument is that scientific laws are not discovered but are chosen.

----------


## Quark

> Scientific _laws_ are not observed or discovered, they are chosen.  This is one of the reasons science is always false.


Yes, that's inductive logic. It's probabilistic, which means the axioms don't certainly mean the conclusion is true. However, I was speaking of how science (and inductive logic in total) is based on empiricism. It's better to describe science in terms of strong or weak, rather than true or false.

----------


## Occam's Banana

> It does follow:


No it doesn't.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> I wouldn't say it was entirely from Einstein's head, especially since Einstein wasn't the only person to contribute to _Special Relativity_ (General Realtivity was an extension of Special Relativity to non-inertial reference frames, and required a much stronger mathematical framework.) Parts of Special Relativity were because of Einstein's imagination, but the need for a new theory of relativity (to replace Galilean relativity) was there due to the lack of experimental verification for the luminiferous aether. There was much guessing before the constancy of C was realized as the solution to the non-invariance of Maxwell's Equations (which would've otherwise been explained by the aether, if empirical results verified its existence.) This shows us that while the process of formulating hypotheses is very creative (which is what Einstein did with Special Relativity, just as his predecessors predicted a Luminiferous Aether) it is not the crucial piece of science. The crucial piece is the reconciliation of these hypotheses with real-world observations. In fact, in much of science observations precede hypotheses, and they act as a guide to formulate the framework used to make new predictions of empirical phenomena.


Correct, thanks.  Pardon my error.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Pot, kettle... You posted in the religion subforum. Unless mods set ALL your posts to default there...


Oh, this thread was moved to the religion forum?

Thanks for letting me know.

I don't think I will post on ronpaulforums anymore.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Yes, that's inductive logic. It's probabilistic, which means the axioms don't certainly mean the conclusion is true. However, I was speaking of how science (and inductive logic in total) is based on empiricism. It's better to describe science in terms of strong or weak, rather than true or false.


This^^.

----------


## AFPVet

> It is more accurate to say "fallacious" than "false".  There is more to logic than formal analysis, after all.  The article brings up a good point.  Popular depictions of scientific work would have you believe that the scientist is someone who sits in a lab and formulates hypotheses, tests them, etc.  But scientists make $#@! up all the time.  Einstein came up with general relativity entirely in his head.  Unfortunately, this creative/artistic aspects of the sciences tends to be downplayed to make scientists seem like the most rational/logical beings around, and all but infallible. :/


To add, science is not always centered around the empirical paradigm, but often includes the interpretive paradigm. Sociologists often use the interpretive/subjective approach rather than reductionist/empirical data. Both are scientific methods... just different approaches.

----------


## BuddyRey

> Please do not turn this thread into a religious debate.  This is a thread about the philosophy of science.


A thread whose original post prominently features an article is from The Trinity Foundation (I don't suppose they're a religious organization, are they?)

You are far too smart and well-read to feign ignorance and think we'll fall for it.

----------


## jmdrake

> A thread whose original post prominently features an article is from The Trinity Foundation (I don't suppose they're a religious organization, are they?)
> 
> You are far too smart and well-read to feign ignorance and think we'll fall for it.


And you are far too smart to believe that SF will follow through and quit posting at RPF.

----------


## presence

> Oh, this thread was moved to the religion forum?
> 
> Thanks for letting me know.
> 
> I don't think I will post on ronpaulforums anymore.





oh bother

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> To add, science is not always centered around the empirical paradigm, but often includes the interpretive paradigm. *Sociologists often use the interpretive/subjective approach rather than reductionist/empirical data. Both are scientific methods... just different approaches.*


Yup.  Physicists tend to do that too.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh, this thread was moved to the religion forum?
> 
> Thanks for letting me know.
> 
> I don't think I will post on ronpaulforums anymore.






> And you are far too smart to believe that SF will follow through and quit posting at RPF.


He'll be missed by at least one, if he's serious.  I don't always agree with him, obviously, but I agree with him a lot of the time and I'd hate to lose him from the site.

Sola, have you talked to the mods about this at all?  Have you even bothered to ask them why they're moving the threads?  Is it really a big enough deal to stop posting here period?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> He'll be missed by at least one, if he's serious.  I don't always agree with him, obviously, but I agree with him a lot of the time and I'd hate to lose him from the site.
> 
> Sola, have you talked to the mods about this at all?  Have you even bothered to ask them why they're moving the threads?  Is it really a big enough deal to stop posting here period?


S_F keeps most of the others in check in the religious community here and shows their hypocrisy which is why I think he/she is an excellent poster. Does the same with science. Once S_F is through sulking we'll be graced with his/her presence again. Everybody takes their football and goes home once in a while.

I don't know where this discussion was originally posted up for discussion but if it was in the science thread I don't see where there would be a problem. Some of the best/most practical discussion in the history of science has come when Christians offer substance to the dabates. Is quite a powerful merge. Even if everyone has to hold their noses once in a while.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> S_F keeps all of the others in check and shows their hypocrisy which is why I think he/she is an excellent poster. Does the same with science. Once S_F is through sulking we'll be graced with his/her presence again. Everybody takes their football and goes home once in a while.
> 
> I don't know where this discussion was originally posted up for discussion but if it was in the science thread I don't see where there would be a problem. Some of the best debate in the history of science has come when Christians offer substance to the dabates.


I'm guessing it was originally posted in the Science and Technology forum.  I don't see why it couldn't stay there.  I also don't see why its worth leaving over.

As a fellow Reformed Christian, I've always enjoyed Sola's thoughts and logical arguments even  though I don't always agree with him.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Originally Posted by *FreedomFanatic* I'm guessing it was originally posted in the Science and Technology forum.  I don't see why it couldn't stay there


Well. When the playbook is a foot thick it's hard for everyone to stay on the same chapter. Some folks like to skip ahead. Others prefer to proof read. Some cram and just pick out what they think is important before the exam. Or just the pop quiz in most cases. And then there are some who just like to look at the pictures. Is what it is. Have to ask yourself what you can do better and work with it is all.

Of course, if it was in gp then it should be expected to be moved. Lots of things I see there _should_ be in the science thread but are scattered all over the place and not where they truly belong in scope. Again, it depends upon how well one understands the playbook.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> A thread whose original post prominently features an article is from The Trinity Foundation (I don't suppose they're a religious organization, are they?)
> 
> You are far too smart and well-read to feign ignorance and think we'll fall for it.


I think Sola's objection here is that religion is somehow being discredited as a legitimate *logical* philosophy.  Instead, the mods are making a separation between "religious" and "nonreligious" subjects.  Which is a problem for Sola because he believes that religion plays a clear, inseperable role in other subjects, including politics, science, etc.

I can't completely disagree with him, but honestly, a thread like this is essentially about a Christian view on science (Note that I am not necessarily saying that it is THE Christian view on science, or even that I completely understand it.)  So it could really go in either the science forum or the religion forum.  I tend to agree that since its about science there's nothing wrong with having it in the science forum, but you  could go either way.  Its definitely not worth leaving the forum over.  I hope Sola reconsiders on leaving over this...

I don't think that Trinity being a religious organization automatically means everything they say needs to be in the religion subforum though.  It really depends on the topic.  I'm a Christian, specifically a Baptist.  The Bible forms the foundation of my worldview.  Laurence Vance is also a Christian and a Baptist, and the Bible forms the foundation for his worldview.  Does this mean that if I post an article from Laurence Vance that it should automatically go in the religion subforum?  Of course not.  Even if it mentions religion or Christianity, this does not necessarily prove that it belongs in the religion subforum.  An article on why Christians should oppose the Iraq War, for instance, could easily go in the Gen Politics or foreign policy section.  Despite the fact that it was written by a Christian from a Christian perspective.  

I'm curious if the mods have any thoughts on this, or if they'd be willing to actually discuss their reasoning for moving threads like this around.  It isn't that big a deal to me, but obviously it is a big deal to Sola.

----------


## Muwahid

Sola, if you get an illness will you go to a hospital?

----------


## Neil Desmond

"*Science is always false.*"  I disagree with this statement.  It is not science itself that is always false.  It is understood and well known in the scientific and engineering "community" that there is a difference between an ideal model used to explain, define, or describe a concept, and the real characteristics of the phenomenon being explained.

Take, for example an ideal diode model compared to a practical diode: http://www.engineersgarage.com/tutorials/diodes

A diode is a two terminal (one terminal is called the anode and the other's the cathode) semiconductor device that is used extensively in electronic devices.  The ideal diode has no electrical current flow through it when it is reverse biased (meaning that in an electrical circuit, the cathode voltage is higher than the anode voltage), but current flows through it as though it is a conductor (with no resistance or voltage drop) when it is forward biased (anode voltage is higher than cathode voltage).

It is not possible (or at least practical) to make an ideal diode; so, if we have to manufacture diodes, we have to do the next best thing, which is to make so-called "practical diodes" (but we still simply refer to them as "diodes").  These practical diodes have many drawbacks and limitations, or behaviors, that make them different from an ideal diode, such as that they always have some current flowing through them when they're reverse biased, as you can see in the diagram in the link, the forward bias voltage has to exceed a threshold voltage level before a significant amount of current will flow through the diode, and there's an upper limit to the magnitude of the voltage in reverse bias before it starts to conduct (which in some cases can destroy the practical diode).

It would probably make more sense to say that all scientific models are false or maybe oversimplified.  Their purpose is to be just that, to intentionally be oversimplified so they can be brief, summarized, or "abstracted" things that can fit on a few pages & won't take forever to cover.  Economics and efficiency are utilized and taken into consideration when writing a textbook for a science or engineering course or topic.

To explore this further, I suggest reading the following article, which is - BTW - on the website of a university whose namesake was a clergyman: http://www.uknow.gse.harvard.edu/tea...TC307-408.html




> Not only are scientific laws non-empirical, they must indeed be false. Take for example the law of the pendulum. It states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the pendulum’s length. But when the scientific presuppositions of this law are examined, it will be found that the pendulum so described must have its weight concentrated at a point, its string must be tensionless, and there must be no friction on its axis.
> 
> Since obviously no such physical pendulum ever existed, it follows that the law of the pendulum describes imaginary pendulums, and that physical pendulums do not obey the laws of physics. Note especially that the analysis does not separate pendulums under laboratory conditions from pendulums in living-room clocks, and does not conclude that in the laboratory, but not in the living room, the laws of physics hold. The analysis shows that no physical pendulum, no matter how excellent the laboratory, satisfies the scientist’s requirements. The scientist’s world is (on pre-Heisenberg theory) perfectly mathematical, but the sense world is not.


Another thing is that there are ways that problems or issues can arise as a result of the way the model of a phenomenon is provided - the way it's described, defined, or explained; sometimes they may even be given inaccurately or incorrectly.  For example, here it uses the word "string" along with the feature of being tensionless.  On the other hand, in this Wikipedia article, it uses the word "rod" rather than tensionless string: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pendulum

I've never heard of, or maybe I don't get the idea behind a pendulum's "string" being tensionless; the way I recognize or understand "practical" pendulums involves having tension on the string, because being attached to the pivot point at one end and the bob at the other end, gravity is exerting force on the mass of the bob.  A rod does not fit the description of a tensionless string, but a rod could be attributed as a "rigid string", or string with tension in it.

Although it would probably make more sense to say that all scientific models are false or maybe oversimplified, it would probably make even more sense to say that there are problems or limitations with communication itself.  For example the use of the words "rod" or "string" to describe the same aspect or component of a pendulum.  How can we convey thoughts or ideas without some form of communication?  This applies to anything in both scientific as well as religious texts, including attempts to defend either side or version.  If one does not properly interpret or understand what is being said in either case, they're going to come away with the wrong idea or impression from what is useful or intended.




> Please do not turn this thread into a religious debate.  This is a thread about the philosophy of science.


It seems like the purpose of the source of the quote in the OP is about some sort of religious debate; however, I do agree that it is about the philosophy of science, or a "valid" critique philosophical issues in general.

----------


## Acala

Properly understood, science is a PROCESS.  It is a process of approaching truth through systematic falsification of symbolic representations of reality.  It works pretty well for practical purposes.  For example, the falsity remaining in the theories of nuclear physics at the time did not prevent the creation and detonation of fission bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  "Your science contains much that is false, but it still incinerated my city."

Of course the ETHICS of using scientific knowledge is another matter entirely.

----------


## Frank Lee Seaux

> It does follow:





> As is known, the attraction of gravity, in the Newtonian theory, is  directly proportional to the product of two masses and inversely  proportional to the square of the distance between them. How could this  law have been obtained by experimental procedures? It was not and could  not have been obtained by measuring a series of lengths and (assuming  unit masses) discovering that the value of the force equaled a fraction  whose denominator was always the square of the distance. A length cannot  be measured.


Your point rests rather precariously on a fallacy of equivocation exemplified by the quote above. The article makes the fallacy of equivocating a line with a distance, and suggesting that neither can be measured, which is, of course, misleading, when and where it isn't outright false. A distance between two points can be measured along a straight line, even though a line may not be measured. For the measurement is not of the line itself, but of the distance between the two points along that continuous line. Thus, producing a line segment, which is measurable.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> Oh, this thread was moved to the religion forum?
> 
> Thanks for letting me know.
> 
> I don't think I will post on ronpaulforums anymore.


You know, for a Christian, you sure do seem to spend a lot of time stirring up conflict.  

Just an observation; hopefully it's one which will be useful to you.  

Peace, brother.

----------


## cajuncocoa

As a Christian, I have never doubted either science or God's Hand in the process.  They are not mutually exclusive.

----------


## otherone

> Another science-vs-religion mental masturbation thread?!
> 
> Aren't you guys starting to chafe yet??


It's the philosophical equivalent of the Napoleon Complex.

----------


## Working Poor

"Science without religon is lame religion without science is blind."

Albert Einstein

----------


## Theocrat

> As a Christian, I have never doubted either science or God's Hand in the process.  They are not mutually exclusive.


I agree. Though science is not the only criterion to discover truth in God's universe, it is still a reliable method of understanding nature in ways that the Bible does not give us details about (which I think is one of the Bible's strengths, actually).

----------


## jmdrake

> S_F keeps most of the others in check in the religious community here and shows their hypocrisy which is why I think he/she is an excellent poster.

----------


## VIDEODROME

Isn't this the reason science has Theories along with Laws?  I'm not sure if and when Quantum Theory will ever become a Law because that stuff is so bizarre and confusing even for scientists.  

I think even Evolution is still just a theory. 

As for Gravity, I think the Math part describing a falling object is a Law, but the reasons behind why objects fall toward each other is probably still theoretical.  

So certainly, science if far from being anything like an Absolute Truth, but it can be a helpful guide.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Isn't this the reason science has Theories along with Laws?  I'm not sure if and when Quantum Theory will ever become a Law because that stuff is so bizarre and confusing even for scientists.  
> 
> I think even Evolution is still just a theory. 
> 
> As for Gravity, I think the Math part describing a falling object is a Law, but the reasons behind why objects fall toward each other is probably still theoretical.  
> 
> So certainly, science if far from being anything like an Absolute Truth, but it can be a helpful guide.


It is an attempt to explain the past and present and predict the future of physical events.

But, yes, gravity is unexplained.

----------


## Natural Citizen

No S_F yet, huh. Maybe he's not fuggin around.

----------


## A Son of Liberty

> No S_F yet, huh. Maybe he's not fuggin aound.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No S_F yet, huh. Maybe he's not fuggin around.





@Jmdrake- I like you too

----------


## Quark

> Isn't this the reason science has Theories along with Laws?  I'm not sure if and when Quantum Theory will ever become a Law because that stuff is so bizarre and confusing even for scientists.  
> 
> I think even Evolution is still just a theory. 
> 
> As for Gravity, I think the Math part describing a falling object is a Law, but the reasons behind why objects fall toward each other is probably still theoretical.  
> 
> So certainly, science if far from being anything like an Absolute Truth, but it can be a helpful guide.


Theories consist of laws, they will always be theories, because they attempt to do something a law does not: explain the world. Newton's Theory of Gravity, for example, consists of Newton's Laws of Motion. Laws are just analytical summaries of observations. It's very much like the laws of human nature that can be used to derive natural-born rights, but of course is more empirically consistent in physics than sociology. Here's what Wikipedia says about this topic, and I think it's pretty accurate. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law




> Laws differ from scientific theories in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation.

----------


## eduardo89

> I don't think I will post on ronpaulforums anymore.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> 


lolz

----------


## Christian Liberty

I think we should all negbomb Sola's post until he posts again

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And you are far too smart to believe that SF will follow through and quit posting at RPF.


So far you are the dumb one here

----------


## eduardo89

> I think we should all negbomb Sola's post until he posts again


You're going to miss your man-crush, aren't you?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You're going to miss your man-crush, aren't you?


Someone has to call your church demonic and Satan-possessed, right?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Someone has to call your church demonic and Satan-possessed, right?


lolz   I suppose we could invite a solaclone from whatever other religion forums he frequents.

----------


## eduardo89

> lolz   I suppose we could invite a solaclone from whatever other religion forums he frequents.


We already have FF, who has said the Church Fathers are in hell, that's close enough.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> We already have FF, who has said the Church Fathers are in hell, that's close enough.


True.  I don't sense the same boiling anger and vitriol in FF's posts as I sensed in S_F's, though. :/

----------


## otherone

> True.  I don't sense the same boiling anger and vitriol in FF's posts as I sensed in S_F's, though. :/


He's just 18.  Vitriol takes a little more time to percolate.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> lolz   I suppose we could invite a solaclone from whatever other religion forums he frequents.


I'd love to have him come to TOL and help me crush the Mid-Acts Dispensationalists and hardcore statists (Who are mostly the same people.)  But I don't think he posts over there.  



> We already have FF, who has said the Church Fathers are in hell, that's close enough.


I don't think I said that.  I certainly didn't say it ad verbatim.  Although the "Church Fathers" covers a lot of different people.  I'm not an expert on any of them, but I suspect that some of them are in Hell and that others are in Heaven.  I did say that, no matter who you are, you can't be saved if you believe in works salvation.  But I don't believe all of the church fathers believed in works salvation.  And even for those who did, its possible, however unlikely, that they repented and believed the truth before they died.  So I wouldn't dogmatically state that any church father is in Hell.  I would say that those who did teach works salvation were unsaved at the time that they taught it, but I won't say whether they are in heaven or Hell.




> True.  I don't sense the same boiling anger and vitriol in FF's posts as I sensed in S_F's, though. :/


Why would I be angry at people long dead?  I'm too busy being mad at statists who are still alive

----------


## Natural Citizen

Many of the people bashing S_F couldn't even carry his books.

----------


## eduardo89

> I did say that, no matter who you are, you can't be saved if you believe in works salvation.  But I don't believe all of the church fathers believed in works salvation.  And even for those who did, its possible, however unlikely, that they repented and believed the truth before they died.  So I wouldn't dogmatically state that any church father is in Hell.  I would say that those who did teach works salvation were unsaved at the time that they taught it, but I won't say whether they are in heaven or Hell.


None of them taught works-salvation. The Church has never taught that. That has been condemned as a heresy from the earliest days of Christianity.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> None of them taught works-salvation. The Church has never taught that. That has been condemned as a heresy from the earliest days of Christianity.


That^^   AFAIK, Salvation By Works is wholly unbiblical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> None of them taught works-salvation. The Church has never taught that. That has been condemned as a heresy from the earliest days of Christianity.


You're defining "Works-salvation" as salvation ONLY by works.  I'm defining works salvation as ANY PART of Salvation being by works.  However you spin it, Catholicism does teach the latter.  I'm not going to link the Council of Trent again because I've done it a million times and you know its there.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Many of the people bashing S_F couldn't even carry his books.


You know what books he reads?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> You're defining "Works-salvation" as salvation ONLY by works.  I'm defining works salvation as ANY PART of Salvation being by works.  However you spin it, Catholicism does teach the latter.  I'm not going to link the Council of Trent again because I've done it a million times and you know its there.


Ummm...I don't know of any church father (Catholic or Orthodox) who endorsed salvation by works.  I'd like to see you quote the Trent Council in full context.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You know what books he reads?


Don't fall into the lol & lolz crowd. That stuff will rot your brain.

Besides. It's not what you read. It's how much.

----------


## eduardo89

> You're defining "Works-salvation" as salvation ONLY by works.  I'm defining works salvation as ANY PART of Salvation being by works.  However you spin it, Catholicism does teach the latter.  I'm not going to link the Council of Trent again because I've done it a million times and you know its there.


I'm going to repost this, since it seems you missed it in another thread:





> That makes no sense. If a saved man will follow the moral law no matter what, the it is a part of his salvation. Otherwise it would not matter whether he followed it or not. If someone does not follow the moral law, he will not be saved (or is not saved as you would say). So logically, following the moral law is essential to salvation, for if it is not followed you are not saved.

----------


## TER

> Besides. It's not what you read. It's how much.


This is a false statement.  Reading lots and lots of garbage doesn't make you smarter.  What you read is more important then how much you read.  Of course, reading lots and lots of good things _is_ a good thing.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This is a false statement.  Reading lots and lots of garbage doesn't make you smarter.  What you read is more important then how much you read.  Of course, reading lots and lots of good things _is_ a good thing.


I don't know, TER. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Or so they say.

----------


## TER

> I don't know, TER. One man's trash is another man's treasure. Or so they say.


That may be true for some things but not for all things.  Making a general relativistic statement like that may be in accoradance to the spirit of the times, but it does mean that some things are not _absolutely_ garbage.  

To use an example in science, reading one book on modern thermodynamics and one book on materials greatly outweighs reading a thousand books on alchemy! (of course, there would probably be a lot of cool things to learn )

----------


## Natural Citizen

> That may be true for some things but not for all things.  Making a general relativistic statement like that may be in accoradance to the spirit of the times, but it does mean that some things are not _absolutely_ garbage.  
> 
> To use an example in science, reading one book on modern thermodynamics and one book on materials greatly outweighs reading a thousand books on alchemy! (of course, there would probably be a lot of cool things to learn )


Heck, I don't know. Alchemy is one of my favorite subjects. Especially it's origins. I do like me some Enoch. Can't believe they removed this book from the Bible. Why do you think they did that, TER?

----------


## TER

> Heck, I don't know. Alchemy is one of my favorite subjects. Especially it's origins. I do like me some Enoch. Can't believe they removed this book from the Bible. Why do you think they did that, TER?



This book was well read by the early Church, and is mentioned in the Epistle of St. Jude.   It's imagery is also used in St. John's Book of Revelation.  The Ethiopian Orthodox Church does consider it part of its holy canon.  The Eastern Orthodox Church does not list it amongst the holy canon but does considers it inspired, worthy to be read.  It is not placed in the same level of authority as other books which were placed in the canon.

I will try to research why this is so and get back to you.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> This book was well read by the early Church, and is mentioned in the Epistle of St. Jude.   It's imagery is also used in St. John's Book of Revelation.  The Ethiopian Orthodox Church does consider it part of its holy canon.  The Eastern Orthodox Church does not list it amongst the holy canon but does considers it inspired, worthy to be read.  It is not placed in the same level of authority as other books which were placed in the canon.
> 
> I will try to research why this is so and get back to you.


Start here... http://www.alchemylab.com/origins_of_alchemy.htm

Now, modern alchemy we don't tend to hear much about. But as I was just saying over in Casey's thread it's surely big business. An example of that... http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/scie...cal-equations/

cultural multilevel selection ... 


> They then “seeded” military technology in squares adjacent to the grasslands of central Asia, because the domestication of horses—the dominant military technology of the age—likely arose there initially.

----------


## jmdrake

> Many of the people bashing S_F couldn't even carry his books.


Not sure if serious or trolling.  But if you believe SF was the one "calling out hypocrites" then you are clueless as to what is a hypocrite.  I think as an atheist you just like S_F crap stirring his fellow Christians whether his arguments actually made sense or not.  So yeah, you're trolling even if you won't admit it.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Don't fall into the lol & lolz crowd. That stuff will rot your brain.


Wait, what?




> Besides. It's not what you read. It's how much.


There's some truth to that but I don't think its completely true.  You could read a lot of statist crap and still be a blind "patriot" nationalist, for example.

----------


## jllundqu

Oh god.... I never give neg rep but SF... bashing science is such broad terms is truly ignorant and distasteful.  It does nothing to spark intelligent debate nor does it speak to the virtues of your religion.  All you have succeeded in doing is troll RPF in a senseless anti-science rant that is not based in the realm of reality and once again made yourself look intolerant and one who likes to prosthelytize.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Not sure if serious or trolling.  But if you believe SF was the one "calling out hypocrites" then you are clueless as to what is a hypocrite.  I think as an atheist you just like S_F crap stirring his fellow Christians whether his arguments actually made sense or not.  So yeah, you're trolling even if you won't admit it.


I'm not an atheist. So get back in your hole. Maybe get on top of the wiki page or something before I do.

----------


## jllundqu

> Yes, that's inductive logic. It's probabilistic, which means the axioms don't certainly mean the conclusion is true. However, I was speaking of how science (and inductive logic in total) is based on empiricism. *It's better to describe science in terms of strong or weak, rather than true or false.*


This

----------


## jmdrake

> I'm not an atheist. So get back in your hole. Maybe get on top of the wiki page or something before I do.


Okay.  But you are clearly trolling regardless of what ever else you claim.  Be sure and have fun!

----------


## Republicanguy

Just how many of us even understand Science, and more religious doctrine?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> Okay.  But you are clearly trolling regardless of what ever else you claim.


Opinions vary.

----------


## jmdrake

> Opinions vary.


Trrollin' trollin' trollin'....keep those posts a flowin'....act like you be knowin'....troll onnnnnnnn!

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Oh, this thread was moved to the religion forum?
> 
> Thanks for letting me know.
> 
> I don't think I will post on ronpaulforums anymore.





> And you are far too smart to believe that SF will follow through and quit posting at RPF.


And who's the stupid one 20+ days later?

(Its OK, we forgive you.  Well, maybe SF doesn't, but he's gone now so he doesn't count)

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Not sure if serious or trolling.  But if you believe SF was the one "calling out hypocrites" then you are clueless as to what is a hypocrite.  I think as an atheist you just like S_F crap stirring his fellow Christians whether his arguments actually made sense or not.  So yeah, you're trolling even if you won't admit it.


SF occasionally went too far.  I'm not convinced on the "All Arminians are unregenerate" thing.  And I think its interesting that SF said "I don't know" to certain propositions which, if true, would prove that he wasn't saved for not knowing, yet he never seemed to realize this (His friends at OTC would say that he was unregenerate for being tolerant of tolerant Calvinists, because he said he didn't know that he agreed that "Tolerant Calvinists" like James White and John Robbins are/were unregenerate.)  To their credit, they occasionally get something right once in a blue moon, but thinking about their arguments too much makes my head spin, and as much as I believe "Few" will be saved, I hardly think "few" consists of a tiny assembly in Vermont and a tiny group of people that may or may not exist around the world that happens to agree with their soteriology to the letter, all the way down to condemning anyone who actually might agree with everything they say but "speak peace" to someone who doesn't, is unregenerate.  I think Sola eventually realized this was absurd, but it took awhile.

That said, I don't think most of you had a problem with Sola because he sometimes came near the edge of saying "Tolerant Calvinists" were unregenerate.  Most of you had a problem with him because he took a bold stand against clear and obvious false gospels like Catholicism and the like.  I wouldn't go so far as saying their priests are "Satanic" but that's more out of charity than because its per say untrue.  Would it be loving not to tell you you were in a false religion?

I'm guessing Natural Citizen respects SF because even though he's not always right, he tries to be consistent with the Bible and what he believes.  I do too, so that makes two of us.

----------


## Petar

I wonder if you realize that science is the whole reason that you are even able to post your facetious crap online...

----------


## Petar

I mean another example is to say that 1 + 1 = 2.

That is basically how science works, but if someone wrote 1 + 1 = 3 in a "holy" book then religion requires you to just have "faith". 

Lame...

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I wonder if you realize that science is the whole reason that you are even able to post your facetious crap online...


I didn't say anything about science.  I don't think I agree with SF on that either (At least not totally, I do agree that God's Word should ultimately be trusted above observations of man that seem to be true but might not be.  I don't agree that science is essentially useless).  But that isn't the real problem you guys have with him either.  The real problem you guys have is that he preaches strict exclusivism.  I don't agree with all of Sola's judgments, but his distinction in general is whether or not a person believes the gospel.  What other standard are we going to judge by?

@Eduardo- No, the distinction is critically important.  Evidence and cause aren't the same thing.  In this one  case, the difference is  damnable.  Are works evidence of faith,  or do they merit justification before God?  How are we saved?  By God's grace, or by works?

We both know the Bible answers these questions one way, while your Church answers them another way.

Saying that if A always leads to B, that this means B is a precondition for A, is absurd.

----------


## Petar

> I didn't say anything about science.  I don't think I agree with SF on that either (At least not totally, I do agree that God's Word should ultimately be trusted above observations of man that seem to be true but might not be.  I don't agree that science is essentially useless).  But that isn't the real problem you guys have with him either.  The real problem you guys have is that he preaches strict exclusivism.  I don't agree with all of Sola's judgments, but his distinction in general is whether or not a person believes the gospel.  What other standard are we going to judge by?
> 
> @Eduardo- No, the distinction is critically important.  Evidence and cause aren't the same thing.  In this one  case, the difference is  damnable.  Are works evidence of faith,  or do they merit justification before God?  How are we saved?  By God's grace, or by works?
> 
> We both know the Bible answers these questions one way, while your Church answers them another way.
> 
> Saying that if A always leads to B, that this means B is a precondition for A, is absurd.


Oh sorry, I was just trying to bitch at Sola Fide. I know it won't do any good, but we all have to get into stupid pointless arguments from time to time I think. I think I do that about 17 times a day myself.

----------


## eduardo89

> @Eduardo- No, the distinction is critically important.  Evidence and cause aren't the same thing.  In this one  case, the difference is  damnable.  Are works evidence of faith,  or do they merit justification before God?  How are we saved?  By God's grace, or by works?


We are saved solely by the Grace of God. Nothing else. 

Works are evidence of our faith. Faith cannot exist which does not manifest itself in works, faith without works is dead. (James 2:17) Works do not merit any justification, we can do nothing to merit our salvation. But works are an integral and inseparable part of faith. 

So I will repeat this again. We are saved solely by the Grace of the Cross, through faith, manifested in works inspired by the Holy Spirit. 

*Without grace we cannot be saved, because without grace we cannot believe, and without grace we can do no good works which are a part of our faith.*




> We both know the Bible answers these questions one way, while your Church answers them another way.
> 
> Saying that if A always leads to B, that this means B is a precondition for A, is absurd.


Once again, you're claiming Catholicism teaches works-salvation.




> Canon 1: *If any one saith, that man may be justified before God by his own works*, whether done through the teaching of human nature, or that of the law, without the grace of God through Jesus Christ; *let him be anathema.*

----------


## presence

> What, then, are these "rivers" of which we read, not here only, but in  all the prophets; which are known on the day of rest and not before, and  which now take the place once occupied by salt and tossing waters? In  Eden the stream is one, but "from thence it is parted," and becomes four  distinct rivers (Gen. 2:10). What is this, but that stream of living  waters, which one and undivided for those who enter Paradise, -- and  without a name while it is there, for in its undivided flow the one  stream is beyond all human description, -- without the garden is parted  into four streams, giving its waters to the world as Pison, Gihon,  Euphrates, and Hiddekel? For divine truth, which is the living water, to  those who can see it as it is within the veil, is one full stream, in  undivided flow; but to us on earth it ever comes by four distinct  channels. It may be said in general that *there are four sources of  truth*, and but four, which are accessible to men, which are like rivers,  in the fertility they produce upon their banks, and in the glorious  power they all possess of reflecting heaven; first,* intuition*, by which we get an acquaintance with moral or spiritual things, which are not objects of sense; second, *perception*, through the senses, by which we only get an acquaintance with material things and their properties; third, *testimony*, by which we learn what others have found out through perception or intuition; fourth, *reasoning*  or reflection, a process of the understanding, by which we unfold what  is contained or implied or suggested by the perceptions, intuitions, or  testimony.


http://alampthatburns.net/jukes/types/typesgen.htm

----------


## Jamesiv1

people like SF are the reason a lot of people choose non-religious spiritual paths. Folks that think they have a lock on God are annoying. Doesn't matter if they're Einstein or dumber than a bag of rocks.

That said, he could be sometimes entertaining.

----------


## Sola_Fide

*Science Is Always False*
http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=19




> Not only are scientific laws non-empirical, they must indeed be false. Take for example the law of the pendulum. It states that the period of the swing is proportional to the square root of the pendulum’s length. But when the scientific presuppositions of this law are examined, it will be found that the pendulum so described must have its weight concentrated at a point, its string must be tensionless, and there must be no friction on its axis. 
> 
> Since obviously no such physical pendulum ever existed, it follows that the law of the pendulum describes imaginary pendulums, and that physical pendulums do not obey the laws of physics. Note especially that the analysis does not separate pendulums under laboratory conditions from pendulums in living-room clocks, and does not conclude that in the laboratory, but not in the living room, the laws of physics hold. The analysis shows that no physical pendulum, no matter how excellent the laboratory, satisfies the scientist’s requirements. The scientist’s world is (on pre-Heisenberg theory) perfectly mathematical, but the sense world is not.
> 
> Naturally a great many people, steeped in nineteenth-century scientific traditions, react violently to the idea that science is all false. Did we not make the atom bomb, they say? Does not vaccination prevent smallpox? Cannot we predict the position of Jupiter and an eclipse of the sun? Verified prediction makes it forever ridiculous to attack science. This reaction is, of course, understandable, however irrational it may be. The argument has not “attacked” science at all; it has insisted that science is extremely useful-though by its own requirements it must be false. The aim nowhere has been to attack science; the aim is to show what science is.
> 
> How science can be useful though false is illustrated in a delightful textbook on inductive logic. Milk fever, the illustration goes, until late in the nineteenth century, was a disease frequently fatal to cows. A veterinarian proposed the theory that it was caused by bacteria in the cows’ udders. The cure therefore was to disinfect the cow, which the veterinarian proceeded to do by injecting Lugol solution into each teat. The mortality under this treatment fell from a previous ninety percent to thirty. Does not this success full treatment prove that the bacteria were killed and that Lugol cured the disease? Unfortunately another veterinarian was caught without the Lugol solution one day, and he injected plain boiled water. The cow recovered. Had water killed the bacteria? What is worse, it was found later that air could be pumped into the cows’ udders with equally beneficial results. The original science was wrong, but it cured the cows nonetheless.
> 
> A closer examination of the logic of verification should be made. In the example above, the first veterinarian probably argued: If bacteria cause milk fever, Lugol solution will cure; the disinfectant does cure it; therefore I have verified the hypothesis that bacteria cause milk fever. This argument, as would be explained in a course of deductive logic, is a fallacy. Its invalidity may perhaps be more clearly seen in an artificial example: If a student doggedly works through Plato’s Republic in Greek, he will know the Greek language; this student knows Greek; therefore he has read Plato’s Republic. This is the fallacy of asserting the consequent, and it is invalid whenever used. But it is precisely this fallacy that is used in every case of scientific verification. If the law of gravitation is true, a freely falling body will have a constant acceleration, and the eclipse will begin at 2:58:03p.m.; but freely falling bodies do have a constant acceleration and the eclipse did begin at 2:58:03 p.m.; therefore the law of gravitation is true. Or, if the periodic table of atomic weights is true, a new element of such and such a weight must exist; this new element has now been discovered; therefore the period table is verified. And, if I eat roast turkey and plum pudding, I lose my appetite; I have lost my appetite; therefore, we had roast turkey for dinner. All these arguments are equally invalid. 
> ...

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> *people like SF are the reason a lot of people choose non-religious spiritual paths.* Folks that think they have a lock on God are annoying. Doesn't matter if they're Einstein or dumber than a bag of rocks.
> 
> That said, he could be sometimes entertaining.


This has been my experience as well.  People like SF (and I've met a number of them) conveniently forget the greatest commandment according to Jesus. (Love God with your whole heart, mind, and strength; love your neighbor as yourself)  It's a common trait among the Reformers-it seems to be because the doctrine (like TULIP), though rigorously thought out, comes apart when subjected to analysis.  Besides that, Calvin was a very depressing fellow in his view of man.



> We are all made of mud, and as this mud is not just on the hem of our gown, or on the sole of our boots, or in our shoes.  We are full of it, we are nothing but mud and filth both inside and outside.


  It's about as far away from gospel (lit. "good news") teaching as one can get, IMO.

----------


## Kevin007

imho God is not opposed to science. Heck- HE created it.

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> imho God is not opposed to science. Heck- HE created it.


 Наука и Религия ("Science And Religion") is a worthy read on this subject.

----------


## Terry1

It's my opinion that science plays a large role in proving the existence of creation more than not, since science can not find the beginning or end to anything that exists.  I believe they work hand in hand-- God revealing Himself through the weakness of mankind's inability to disprove creation and His existence.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> *Science Is Always False*
> 
> The scientists world is (on pre-Heisenberg theory) perfectly mathematical, but the sense world is not.


You need to learn the difference between a proof that is acceptable to a physicist and one that's acceptable to a mathematician.

----------


## erowe1

> You need to learn the difference between a proof that is acceptable to a physicist and one that's acceptable to a mathematician.


Why does he need to?

And what makes you think that he doesn't already know?

----------


## Ronin Truth

Considering how false/erroneous/fallacious/approximate/etc. science is, ain't it just absolutely amazing how well it seems to work?

----------


## VIDEODROME

Condemns science while posting on the internet lol.

----------


## Cabal

This thread is embarrassing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This thread is embarrassing.


You cannot refute anything in the OP.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Considering how false/erroneous/fallacious/approximate/etc. science is, ain't it just absolutely amazing how well it seems to work?


...


> How science can be useful though false is illustrated in a delightful textbook on inductive logic. Milk fever, the illustration goes, until late in the nineteenth century, was a disease frequently fatal to cows. A veterinarian proposed the theory that it was caused by bacteria in the cows’ udders. The cure therefore was to disinfect the cow, which the veterinarian proceeded to do by injecting Lugol solution into each teat. The mortality under this treatment fell from a previous ninety percent to thirty. Does not this success full treatment prove that the bacteria were killed and that Lugol cured the disease? Unfortunately another veterinarian was caught without the Lugol solution one day, and he injected plain boiled water. The cow recovered. Had water killed the bacteria? What is worse, it was found later that air could be pumped into the cows’ udders with equally beneficial results. The original science was wrong, but it cured the cows nonetheless.

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> You cannot refute anything in the OP.


The fact that we're having this debate on the Internet refutes the OP quite nicely.  It as if you believed that Zeno's paradoxes prove that motion is impossible, the best refutation of which would be to drop an anvil on your foot.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> ...


You want to disect the Periodic Table of the Elements now?

----------


## Natural Citizen

> You cannot refute anything in the OP.



S_F, yer killin me, man. I just typed up a quick book in your pm box because I didn't really feel like a public debate on the op and it said your box is full. Jiminy crickets.  I'm not typing all of that again.

Basically, we are all jiggly things. As is the pendulum that "isn't there" in the op. It really is there. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't.I was just telling nang this in the other thread. Well...not directly but just in a kind of sort of way. Nang was defining the path to order on a scale that merely equates to man's need for centrality. Of course, man should define himself in much broader terms than simply his personality but frankly, he can't. He can't see those jiggly things all around him that he's connected to (basically the universe). He then separates thought from matter. He separates the heavens and the Earth in a way that stimulates that which conforms to his personality. He defines himself and his view of order in much simpler terms than what is truly there to observe. Terms that he can mold himself within artificially. An environment for just him and him alone. 

The pendulum model is a similar construct. It's certainly reflective of the phenomenon.

Who wrote that thing anyhow?

----------


## Kevin007

God AND science are not opposed....

----------


## erowe1

> As is the pendulum that "isn't there" in the op. It really is there. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean that it isn't.


If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the laws of mathematics actually exist. They are out there as things in this world that we discover, rather than invent. Matter never perfectly emulates the ideal pendulum. But the ideal pendulum is still there, not that it's in a physical spot, but that it is real.

Is that right?

If so, I agree.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> God AND science are not opposed....


 How about  God AND religion?

----------


## helmuth_hubener

> If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the laws of mathematics actually exist. They are out there as things in this world that we discover, rather than invent. Matter never perfectly emulates the ideal pendulum. But the ideal pendulum is still there, not that it's in a physical spot, but that it is real.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> If so, I agree.


 We have a Halikaarnian in our midst!

----------


## Sonny Tufts

> If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the laws of mathematics actually exist. They are out there as things in this world that we discover, rather than invent. Matter never perfectly emulates the ideal pendulum. But the ideal pendulum is still there, not that it's in a physical spot, but that it is real.


Mathematical Platonism.

----------


## moostraks

> How about  God AND religion?


Religion like science seems often to prove the tale of the blind men and the elephant. Depending on what they are trying to prove they get a portion right but often discount the vast potential outside of the individual's frame of reference.

----------


## Ronin Truth

> Religion like science seems often to prove the tale of the blind men and the elephant. Depending on what they are trying to prove they get a portion right but often discount the vast potential outside of the individual's frame of reference.


 If we're all only just limited and guessing, then what's all the friggin' discord about?

----------


## moostraks

> If we're all only just limited and guessing, then what's all the friggin' discord about?


Some seem to think they can belittle others because they have super powers which come with their elect team jerseys.

----------


## Natural Citizen

> If I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that the laws of mathematics actually exist. They are out there as things in this world that we discover, rather than invent. Matter never perfectly emulates the ideal pendulum. But the ideal pendulum is still there, not that it's in a physical spot, but that it is real.
> 
> Is that right?
> 
> If so, I agree.


Something like that. You know, e...this is why I didn't want to post that kind of spew on the board. Here is an area where science and faith come together wonderfully but is also left open in a manner that this progress would be destroyed out in the wild west where , again, personalities get in the way of the connection. Almost like a roadblock.

----------

