|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: can science accept assertive law? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
not sure how to debate existence, which the word is like all words, they describe something.
existing isn't an idea..its an asserted fact that science has not produced an answer to. i cant debate it in science that's based on something tentative. I'm deeply concerned that science is given too much freedom with tentative theories in regard to what i call : the LAW of existence. is this then debatable? or forever to be overlooked by science? (its viable in the ID debate since existence is what religion was spawned from by the question that only man can ask: where did we come from, and how can we exist? which ironically was also the basis of scientific enquiry) -IMO keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
The topic is not appropriate for the Coffee House.
To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Coffee House forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
I think you are trying to debate the question that is often stated as "Why is there something, rather than nothing?"
I'm not sure what to do with this topic. It does not fit well in any of our forums. Your previous attempt to discuss this failed, because you wanted it to be a Great Debate, but it takes the agreement of two people before we can have a GD. Most scientists will tell you that this is not a scientific question. If your interest is in discussing why scientists do not consider this to be a scientific question, I guess we could move the topic to Is It Science?. If you are wanting to discuss the question itself, then it doesn't really fit anywhere, but we could possibly squeeze it into one of the religious forums. If you want to discuss it from the perspective of the biblical creation accounts, then Bible Study might be best. Otherwise, I suppose we could try Theological Creationism and ID, though it doesn't fit well with the announced scope of that forum. Where would you like to see it go? (other admins also invited to add their two cents) To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
personally, is it science seems best fitted for me.
i want to know if an asserted fact of logic has any place in science at all. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'm deeply concerned that science is given too much freedom with tentative theories in regard to what i call : the LAW of existence.
Can you explain this concern. I am not seeing a problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
is there not a theory that sub-atomic particles are chaotic?
if yes, would this theory be found impossible by an acceptance of existence as being an established intelligent entity? in this way: i would assert that chaos is only apparent by intelligent design, and that no order can exist (accept for a microsecond) if based on chaos. if you refute these assertions, then let me just say that: if existence itself is proof of God under the law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the lack of observance is an ignorance of science. and that by acknowledging this would also create a new law concerning religion and science: that no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other.therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by. Edited by tesla, : removed "not" keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I'll first note that I am not a quantum physicist, so I may have some of this wrong.
is there not a theory that sub-atomic particles are chaotic?
As far as I know, there is no such theory. It is observed that behavior of such particles appears to have a random component. Note that this is observation, not theory. Note also, that "random" and "chaotic" mean quite different things. Most physicists will agree that they cannot rule out the possibility of hidden variables, such that the behaviour of sub-atomic particles could be completely determined by those hidden variables. However, observation shows that if there are such hidden variables, they could not be local variables.
if yes, would this theory be found impossible by an acceptance of existence as being an established intelligent entity?
I don't see the relation. You seem to have an entire thread on that topic, namely if scientists accept God in science, is science destroyed?.
in this way: i would assert that chaos is only apparent by intelligent design, and that no order can exist (accept for a microsecond) if based on chaos. I think you are confused by "chaos". Technically, behavior can be completely describable by equations, yet still be chaotic. So being chaotic does not rule out the possibility of order, though there might be an appearance of disorder.
if you refute these assertions, then let me just say that: if existence itself is proof of God under the law: energy cannot be created or destroyed, then the lack of observance is an ignorance of science. and that by acknowledging this would also create a new law concerning religion and science:
Sorry, but that seems incoherent.
that no law of science can contradict God, therefore, being science established truths, that science is in harmony of God and God in harmony of science, because one begets the other.
I'm wondering if you are confused about what are scientific laws. They are quite different from laws in our legal system. They are part of an attempt to describe the world.therefore also: neither can any religion or law in religion contradict science which would be a contradiction of God, from whom science was established by. Some scientific laws are false, and known to be false - Boyle's law would be a good example here. It is true only for ideal gases, but false for any real gases. It is, however, a very good and useful approximation when used with real gases. Edited by nwr, : spelling, spacing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
there is a chaos theory for sub atomic particles. i just don't know if it has been written off.
ill show you my definition of chaos: chaos: total disorder: chaotic (Websters) chaos means no order at all. but that's getting off topic, i just wanted to answer my motives. to answer the incoherent text: if existence is not defined, it is an ignorance of science. and science suffers an unnecessary ignorance. but the reason for the topic, with existence as an example; how can an asserted statement be explored by science if science will only explore the tentative? is it even possible for scientific inquiry? keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
If you continue to clutter up all the threads with the same rather incoherent nonsense you will have to start getting time outs.
You don't know the meaning of many of the words you use. (Hint, chaotic in reference to physical systems has a very specific meaning different from the dictionary's more colloquial meaning e.g.) In any case, contain yourself or be contained.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
so...i should stop posting on these threads?
keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
You should confine it to this thread. It is dumb that I picked this one to warn you in.
Just keep the existence chatter in this one only. Edited by AdminNosy, : correct author
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
tesla Member (Idle past 1614 days) Posts: 1199 Joined: |
kk warning noted. but i must also note i cannot post in any ID or science forums concerning ID without acknowledging what I cannot dispute, is the reason for the debate at all.
ill refrain from posting any of my ideas concerning the issue. the purpose of this thread is to see if science can accept assertive law for scientific inquery. Edited by tesla, : changed content of the post. keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is ~parmenides
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6409 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
chaos: total disorder: chaotic (Websters)
Well, okay. But this is a science discussion, so we should be using the scientific meaning of chaos, not the common dictionary meaning. From the Wikipedia entry on chaosquote: to answer the incoherent text: if existence is not defined, it is an ignorance of science. and science suffers an unnecessary ignorance.
Science only defines what it studies. Philosophers and theologians might study (or claim to study) existence. Science studies what it can observe in the world, and defines only what is needed for its accounts of what it studies.
but the reason for the topic, with existence as an example; how can an asserted statement be explored by science if science will only explore the tentative?
Science studies what it can observe. Asserted statements are not part of what science studies - except, perhaps, psychology might use asserted statements as providing information on the psychology of the asserter. I'm not sure where you got the idea that science will only explore the tentative. Scientific theories may be tentative, but there are also scientific facts.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024