Back to Home

God & Science Forum Message

Forums: Atm · Astrophotography · Blackholes · Blackholes2 · CCD · Celestron · Domes · Education
Eyepieces · Meade · Misc. · God and Science · SETI · Software · UFO · XEphem
RSS Button

Home | Discussion Forums | God and Science | Post
Login

Be the first pioneers to continue the Astronomy Discussions at our new Astronomy meeting place...
The Space and Astronomy Agora
Is So...not So....is So....not So...what Is "not So," Tim?

Forum List | Follow Ups | Post Message | Back to Thread Topics | In Response To
Posted by Mikey Pearson on September 13, 2003 10:51:29 UTC

Hi Tim
Don't worry, I am not talking over your head ! :)
You wrote:
"the varied interpretations of QM another creationism & big bangism, relativity ect.
and i don't really have a problem with any of those as long as the definitions of each and conclusions drawn are self consistent and logically irrefutable with in any give point of view."

We cannot tell if they are irrefutable until we try to refute them! Some of those are quite refutable when misapplied to the wrong question!
Agree?

mathematics is the most self consistent and logically irrefutable system of thought we have with respect to definitions and conclusions.

Exactly NOT! Mathematics can be logically refuted in many instances by pointing out its irrelevance to a particular situation. Fairly elementary math is all that is needed for almost all decisions that humans make. The exceptions are interesting -- but can you discuss them?
Dr. Dick never has discussed them on this forum as far as I can tell. I think there is much illogic done with math because someone has blind faith in math.


that doesn't answer Einstein's question i alluded to in the previous post but it does provide a solid starting point for Dr. Dick's definition of reality as being a set of numbers.


Well, I think you did not refute my idea that
scientific reality is a model that rests entirely on measurements -- hence numbers -- but that if we have not discovered the properties of something and not measured it, then we do not have the numbers. I would try harder to "refute" his vague assertion, but he "hid" me quite a while ago, saying nasty things about my posted content.
He has not had much to say on this forum about "God" or any science except physics.
He implies God is for ignorant persons who do not know math. Yet he offers no opinions about
the many pressing matters which face humanity,
and can only seem to discuss stuff in the physics department.

Follow Ups:

Login to Post
Additional Information
Google
 
Web www.astronomy.net
DayNightLine
About Astronomy Net | Advertise on Astronomy Net | Contact & Comments | Privacy Policy
Unless otherwise specified, web site content Copyright 1994-2022 John Huggins All Rights Reserved
Forum posts are Copyright their authors as specified in the heading above the post.
"dbHTML," "AstroGuide," "ASTRONOMY.NET" & "VA.NET"
are trademarks of John Huggins