Evidence for God from Science

But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

We're getting bogged down on semantics.

Audie wrote:But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

I question the sincerity of this statement. If we were both standing on a 10 story building and I said, "hey you should jump off because we don't really know the law of gravity is true," you are going to call BS.
You act and respond as if gravity is true, because it's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly.
There is no way in hell we could have put a man on the moon unless science accepted that the law of gravity was true.

jlay wrote:We're getting bogged down on semantics.

Audie wrote:But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

I question the sincerity of this statement. If we were both standing on a 10 story building and I said, "hey you should jump off because we don't really know the law of gravity is true," you are going to call BS.
You act and respond as if gravity is true, because it's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly.
There is no way in hell we could have put a man on the moon unless science accepted that the law of gravity was true.

And by extension all the sciences become nothing more than a guessing game, holding our collective breath and hoping our next step is not an exception to the rule.

I suspect many scientists are holding their breaths hoping to find exceptions to the current rules.

jlay:
Which law of gravity are you referring to? Newton's has been broken by Einstein's theories....which kinda leaves us without a working law of gravity.

jlay wrote:We're getting bogged down on semantics.

Audie wrote:But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

I question the sincerity of this statement. If we were both standing on a 10 story building and I said, "hey you should jump off because we don't really know the law of gravity is true," you are going to call BS.
You act and respond as if gravity is true, because it's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly.
There is no way in hell we could have put a man on the moon unless science accepted that the law of gravity was true.

Wadjertone, there, Bud! Calling me insincere, will ya?

This famous quote applies to laws or theories..."No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."
Albert Einstein


Gravity will work just the same whether we figure out how it works, or not.

At one time, the "science" of it had heavy things falling faster then light ones, "that which goes up must come down", and that if you drop something, it will fall.

the first was disproved by simple experiment, the latter two were harder, as all observations to date had confirmed them. But, they didnt have space rockets, and didnt know about wrightlessness till much later.

Working knowledge of how something operates in familiar circumstances is not the same, at all, as having a proven law.

The thing about laws and theories is that they can never be proven true (a general rule that always applies), no matter how many observations are made, because there could be one more that contains the exception.

The anvil will smash your toe when you drop it, unless you are, say, standing on a little asteroid. The ten minutes it takes to drift down will give you time to move.

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:We're getting bogged down on semantics.

Audie wrote:But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

I question the sincerity of this statement. If we were both standing on a 10 story building and I said, "hey you should jump off because we don't really know the law of gravity is true," you are going to call BS.
You act and respond as if gravity is true, because it's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly.
There is no way in hell we could have put a man on the moon unless science accepted that the law of gravity was true.

And by extension all the sciences become nothing more than a guessing game, holding our collective breath and hoping our next step is not an exception to the rule.

Its not "guessing" its probabilities. You do know that science doesnt do "fact", "truth", or "agbsolute".

As for hoping the next is NOT an exception? ha. Au contraire! The exception is fantastic! That is where the breakthrus are.

IF one found an exception to any of our laws or theories, they, it shows the law / theory was wrong, and opens all manner of new avenues of exploration.

The guy who finds the "Cambrian bunny" will have made the greatest single scientific discovery in many decades, maybe ever. For, Lo! He will at a swipe, have wrecked
a vast swath of theory in all the hard sciences.

Proinsias wrote:I suspect many scientists are holding their breaths hoping to find exceptions to the current rules.

jlay:
Which law of gravity are you referring to? Newton's has been broken by Einstein's theories....which kinda leaves us without a working law of gravity.

What he was talking about a working knowledge of how it operates in our experience here on earth.

Cave man knew when you throw a rock, aim high if you want it to reach a distant target.

Interesting debates.

I wanted to say this: Audie, when you want to quote a post and insert in between your comments, then please at least put one [/quote] before your first comment. It will then be more readable. There still will be one [/quote] left at the and but Ok.

Thanks.

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:We're getting bogged down on semantics.

Audie wrote:But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

I question the sincerity of this statement. If we were both standing on a 10 story building and I said, "hey you should jump off because we don't really know the law of gravity is true," you are going to call BS.
You act and respond as if gravity is true, because it's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly.
There is no way in hell we could have put a man on the moon unless science accepted that the law of gravity was true.

And by extension all the sciences become nothing more than a guessing game, holding our collective breath and hoping our next step is not an exception to the rule.

Its not "guessing" its probabilities. You do know that science doesnt do "fact", "truth", or "agbsolute".

As for hoping the next is NOT an exception? ha. Au contraire! The exception is fantastic! That is where the breakthrus are.

IF one found an exception to any of our laws or theories, they, it shows the law / theory was wrong, and opens all manner of new avenues of exploration.

The guy who finds the "Cambrian bunny" will have made the greatest single scientific discovery in many decades, maybe ever. For, Lo! He will at a swipe, have wrecked
a vast swath of theory in all the hard sciences.

The point was that scientists use their already established knowledge base to make further discoveries. If in the process they discover that the knoweldge base was faulty, adjustments are made accordingly. And of course the ultimate point I was driving at was that this knowledge base is an accumulation of discoveries of the reality around us, not merely a construct of our mind. Whether we exist or not, it doesn't change this reality. In any case, we've belabored the point far more than it deserves. Yours is the last word (from my side).

1over137 wrote:Interesting debates.

I wanted to say this: Audie, when you want to quote a post and insert in between your comments, then please at least put one

before your first comment. It will then be more readable. There still will be one [/quote] left at the and but Ok.

Thanks.[/quote]


oops.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:We're getting bogged down on semantics.

Audie wrote:But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

I question the sincerity of this statement. If we were both standing on a 10 story building and I said, "hey you should jump off because we don't really know the law of gravity is true," you are going to call BS.
You act and respond as if gravity is true, because it's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly.
There is no way in hell we could have put a man on the moon unless science accepted that the law of gravity was true.

And by extension all the sciences become nothing more than a guessing game, holding our collective breath and hoping our next step is not an exception to the rule.

Its not "guessing" its probabilities. You do know that science doesnt do "fact", "truth", or "agbsolute".

As for hoping the next is NOT an exception? ha. Au contraire! The exception is fantastic! That is where the breakthrus are.

IF one found an exception to any of our laws or theories, they, it shows the law / theory was wrong, and opens all manner of new avenues of exploration.

The guy who finds the "Cambrian bunny" will have made the greatest single scientific discovery in many decades, maybe ever. For, Lo! He will at a swipe, have wrecked
a vast swath of theory in all the hard sciences.

The point was that scientists use their already established knowledge base to make further discoveries. If in the process they discover that the knoweldge base was faulty, adjustments are made accordingly. And of course the ultimate point I was driving at was that this knowledge base is an accumulation of discoveries of the reality around us, not merely a construct of our mind. Whether we exist or not, it doesn't change this reality. In any case, we've belabored the point far more than it deserves. Yours is the last word (from my side).

Rats, nothing to disagree about.

Byblos wrote:

Audie wrote:

Byblos wrote:

jlay wrote:We're getting bogged down on semantics.

Audie wrote:But we dont ever know if the law is actually true.

I question the sincerity of this statement. If we were both standing on a 10 story building and I said, "hey you should jump off because we don't really know the law of gravity is true," you are going to call BS.
You act and respond as if gravity is true, because it's been demonstrated to be true repeatedly.
There is no way in hell we could have put a man on the moon unless science accepted that the law of gravity was true.

And by extension all the sciences become nothing more than a guessing game, holding our collective breath and hoping our next step is not an exception to the rule.

Its not "guessing" its probabilities. You do know that science doesnt do "fact", "truth", or "agbsolute".

As for hoping the next is NOT an exception? ha. Au contraire! The exception is fantastic! That is where the breakthrus are.

IF one found an exception to any of our laws or theories, they, it shows the law / theory was wrong, and opens all manner of new avenues of exploration.

The guy who finds the "Cambrian bunny" will have made the greatest single scientific discovery in many decades, maybe ever. For, Lo! He will at a swipe, have wrecked
a vast swath of theory in all the hard sciences.

The point was that scientists use their already established knowledge base to make further discoveries. If in the process they discover that the knoweldge base was faulty, adjustments are made accordingly. And of course the ultimate point I was driving at was that this knowledge base is an accumulation of discoveries of the reality around us, not merely a construct of our mind. Whether we exist or not, it doesn't change this reality. In any case, we've belabored the point far more than it deserves. Yours is the last word (from my side).

Great point, and kind of what I was driving at.
The force of gravity is a reality of the universe. How we understand it may change depending on new discovery.
As Pros said, which theory? Well, both. My understanding, and I'm not a physicist, is that Einsteins theory didn't disprove Newton but explained things that Newton's theory did and could not. In other words, both men were attempting to explain the same force.
Even when we speak of anomalies, we need to be careful and honest with how we use the word. The force of gravity doesn't randomly change or shift. The so called anomaly is likely an exception that occurs in a detectable and consistent pattern. And we find that things are happening exactly like they are supposed to in a way we can test and predict. For example, Einstein's helped explain anomalies in planetary orbits that Newton's did not. But if those anomalies were just arbitrary and random, then we could not expect to land a man on the moon, or send a deep space probe to a determined location.

For small gravitational fields and for small velocities (far from speed of light) einstein's theory reduces to Newton's theory. For planetary motion of Mercury scientists had to use Einstein's theory to explain the motion as Mercury is very close to the sun and the gravitational field is not small.