Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is a Theory?
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 49 of 249 (494091)
01-13-2009 3:39 PM


Theories vs theories
Well there are theories and then there are theories. Do not religions have 'theories' about the correct interpretation of scripture and also what is accepted as such?
When I first heard that YECs were not simply YECs but YUCs as well I was astounded beyond belief. It was at a gathering of youth to listen to this YEC / YUC that I first heard this along with the children some as young as 10 years old. The children were all on board with this man 'since he was on the side of God' and they knew nothing yet of science. But when the claim was made that light from distant stars was created in transit it was as if a light switch had been thrown and you could read it on their faces. Even 10 year old children suddenly looked at this man like he was absolutely nuts and you could see them snickering behind his back with each other for the rest of his remarks.
I guess the lesson is that faith can be placed in anything whether true or false and that religion is not science and can never become such. Religion is based upon a different foundation than science altogether. Whether one has a foundation for his faith is an individual matter.
We are living in an age of greater knowledge than has ever existed previously and we ought to demonstrate some respect and appreciation for that knowledge and some gratitude towards those who have sacrificed much of their lives to provide it to the rest of us.
If your theories(views/interpretations) of scripture do not coincide with science, you might find it easier to modify your 'theory' of what those written accounts mean, rather than kick against the pricks of scientific knowledge. Catholics do it. Gerald L. Schroeder in his book "The Science of God" did it. Why can't YEC/YUCs do it? What does the inability to grow and change signify for a child? Will he ever become a man?

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 107 of 249 (494180)
01-14-2009 4:41 PM


A true theory can therefore only consist of (necessarily past) facts and unfalsifiable claims (religion).
So religion for someone living prior to the birth of Christ (I am taking a leap here in assuming your religion is bible based, correct me if I'm wrong) was believing in a false theory?? i.e. Abraham??
"Religion is scientifically unproven and therefore false." bothers me.
This statement is a philosophical statement. It simply means that someone making it subscribes to the idea that truth only should be accepted that fits within the confines of the scientific method.
Religion is not based on the scientific method. The scientific method is of relatively recent date, therefore it was not the foundation of religion.
That is why I demonstrate that science according to itself is unproven and false,
You are confusing science with meta-physics. Science applies mathematical models to the 'real world', whatever 'that' is. Of course it can never answer what reality 'is'. But it can describe it as accurately as necessary for practical purposes.
while again according to science, religion is unproven and true.
The principle of continuity demands that a theory falsifiable by zero facts and (obviously) not falsified by them, is true. Therefore, unfalsifiable theories must be considered: true.
The way you are applying this concept is incorrect. Let me demonstrate a proof by contradiction.
By your reasoning the christian religion is true.
But by this same reasoning Islam is true.
Islam and Christianity cannot both be true.
Therefore your method of 'proof' is incorrect.
Does the question: "If these things happen in a green tree, what shall happen in a dry?" mean anything to you?
If scientific theories are false because there is always more evidence that hasn't yet been observed, what does that say about religion??

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 155 of 249 (494348)
01-15-2009 12:33 PM


The point is that such "perfect theory" cannot exist. It cannot be phrased.
You just shot down any basis for religion as well here..
Edited by shalamabobbi, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by erikp, posted 01-15-2009 6:00 PM shalamabobbi has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 167 of 249 (494434)
01-16-2009 1:40 AM


contradiction?
In your own words, pay attention to the appearance of the word axiom and its' derivatives in the following quotes..
Gdel's work is very interesting, as it shows the limitations of mathematics and other formal axiomatic systems (the fact that they are necessarily false).
axiomatic reduction does indeed not amount to "proof
Gdel already proves that all axiomatic theories capable of expression basic arithmetic are incomplete (and therefore false)
Mathematical theories are axiomatically reduced, but never proven, because the axioms to which they are (recursively) being reduced, and on which every mathematical statement eventually rests, MAY NOT be proven.
Mathematics demands that its entire hypothesis be concentrated in its axioms, which in turn remain unproven.
contrasted with..
Religion uses its core initial axiom concerning the beginning of the universe, in order to phrase rules about what is right and wrong.
And you are telling me that you are not self-contradictory in your understanding? I repeat, your argument is incorrect and destroys the very foundation you are trying to protect..
Here's an atheist's application of the theorem in the same manner you are using it, again incorrectly..
"Godel's Incompleteness Theorem demonstrates that it is impossible for
the Bible to be both true and complete."
Here's a quote from a book reviewing the theorem and its' applications:
More reasonable have been attempts to apply
the incompleteness theorem to physics. The hypothetical
“theory of everything” (TOE) is sometimes
taken tobe an ideal of theoretical physics. However,
such eminent physicists as Freeman Dyson and
Stephen Hawking have invoked Gdel’s theorem to
suggest that there is no such theory of everything
to be had. Now it seems more reasonable to assume
that a formalization of theoretical physics would
be the subject of the incompleteness theorem by
incorporating an arithmetical component. Nevertheless,
Franzénadds,Gdel’s theorem tells us only
that there is an incompleteness in the arithmetical
component of the theory. Whether a physical theory
is complete when considered as a description
of the physical world is not something that the
incompleteness theorem tells us anything about.
http://www.ams.org/notices/200703/rev-raatikainen.pdf
I think that exploring the limits of science, or the limits of any discipline for that matter, is one of the most important exercises in that discipline.
The reason why I am interested in the limitations of science, is because science is often used to attack religion
And the corollary..
I think that exploring the limits of religion, or the limits of any discipline for that matter, is one of the most important exercises in that discipline.
The reason why I am interested in the limitations of religion, is because religion is often used to attack science.
What are the practical implications of your views in terms of existing scientific theories? Which of them do you see in a different light as a result of your POV?
What is the significance of what you are stating? Are you stating that a grand unified theory is not possible?
Are you suggesting that other existing scientific theories are way off the mark, or that they may continually need minor modification and tweaking as from Newtonian mechanics to general relativity?
Edited by shalamabobbi, : addition

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by Adminnemooseus, posted 01-16-2009 2:09 AM shalamabobbi has not replied
 Message 172 by erikp, posted 01-16-2009 6:10 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 185 of 249 (494496)
01-16-2009 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by erikp
01-16-2009 6:10 AM


Re: contradiction?
This also means, indeed, that religion cannot be used to predict the future.
That's an interesting religion. Certainly not biblical. Thanks for clarifying. I will retract my guess of 'evangelical' then, and assume that you do not fall into the biblical inerrancy nonsense camp. But if you do have a bible based religion and also believe this statement you made, then your bible is thinner than other bibles, such as the kind found in motel rooms.
'bounded' in mathematics - an example:
a line segment from 1 to 2 that includes its endpoints is bounded.
If it doesn't include the endpoints it is unbounded.
Both contain an infinite amount of points.
The only difference is that one contains the numbers, 1 and 2, and the other does not.
Another example:
A circle in a plane with its interior is bounded. Exclude the circle and the remaining set of interior points are unbounded even though that set is smaller than the first.
Another example:
A ball in 3 dimensions if it includes the points comprising the sphere is bounded, if it only includes points interior to the sphere it is unbounded.
An example of a set that is infinite and both bounded and unbounded is a line segment that includes one endpoint but not the other..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by erikp, posted 01-16-2009 6:10 AM erikp has not replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 199 of 249 (494658)
01-17-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Ambercab
01-17-2009 6:15 AM


theological theory based upon scripture?
In theology the test is based on scripture, and in philosophy on logic. The emphasis in both is usually on proof.
I hope this is on topic. A theory of theology anyhow.
Two points:
1. If in theology the test is based on scripture, you are saying that the scripture is, in the language of linear algebra, an independent set rather than a dependent set. The distinction between a unique solution and infinitely many solutions for the math, but while perhaps short of infinitely many for beliefs, still allows many perceptions to exist.
If this idea is correct that scripture determines only one 'correct' perception, why does Constantine in convening the council of Nicaea, call for a vote after differing views are presented? Why are there differing views? And after being outvoted what happens to Arius's view and to the significance of the scriptures he quoted?
2. If in theology the test is based on scripture, what happens 'in the limit' as we approach Adam in this basis for 'Adam's theology' and finally before anything is recorded about theology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by Ambercab, posted 01-17-2009 6:15 AM Ambercab has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by Ambercab, posted 01-18-2009 10:05 AM shalamabobbi has replied

  
shalamabobbi
Member (Idle past 2849 days)
Posts: 397
Joined: 01-10-2009


Message 201 of 249 (494797)
01-18-2009 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by Ambercab
01-18-2009 10:05 AM


Re: theological theory based upon scripture?
I should have said that the test is based on 'interpretation of scripture' instead of just 'scripture'. Hopefully that deals with your second point - without any scripture, Adam has nothing to interpret.
Well not really, as there is then no basis for theology according to your statement. Whether theology is based on scripture or the interpretation of scripture, the problem remains.
What basis did theology have before the first written scripture? In other words maybe you have it backwards.
Scripture is based on theology.
Anyhow.. back to what is a theory.. hopefully..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by Ambercab, posted 01-18-2009 10:05 AM Ambercab has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024