Why do theists come to this forum?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-02-2016, 01:38 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 01:18 PM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 06:19 AM)Chas Wrote:  You still don't understand what a scientific law is. It is a man-made description of an observed regular pattern.

You still don't understand what a scientific theory is. It is a larger construct that explains those observations and predicts effects.

Correct, inductive observation leads to scientific law. So is the law of conservation of matter and energy inviolate? This is a rhetorical question because mainstream science rejects steady state theory and overwhelmingly accepts big bang cosmology instead. Matter and energy were created in the Big Bang OR existed in a pre-incarnate (pun intended) form inside the singularity of the Big Bang.

The logical deductive conclusion: Matter and energy are eternal or an outside catalyst created them in the early moments of the universe. Which would you postulate is the correct choice and why?

Where did you deduce this "OUTSIDE" from?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
I thought I nailed it back in post three, but apparently theists actually come to this forum to torture me with supercilious scientific ignorance. Who knew?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:39 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 01:38 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Where did you deduce this "OUTSIDE" from?

Presupposition.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:47 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 01:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 12:46 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  That was a lot of words that pretty much repeated what I said while saying I'm wrong.

I can give you a trivial counter-example to the false "hierarchy" you keep insisting on, if that makes things easier.

Coulomb's Law is a descriptive statement characterising a type of macroscopic electromagnetic behaviour - that is, the forces between electrostatic charges.
Quantum Field Theory (in this case, quantum electrodynamics) is the framework which accounts for the interaction that causes the above 'law' in its limiting case. Contrast classical electromagnetic theory, wherein coulombic interaction is taken as axiomatic (nb: in the mathematical sense). Quantum electrodynamics gives a rigorous derivation of Coulomb's law.

Now: which is more true?
en.wikipedia.org

Coulomb's law, orCoulomb's inverse-squarelaw, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. The lawwas first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles Augustin deCoulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism.

Seems like the law was used to develop the THEORY.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:50 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 01:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:34 PM)cjlr Wrote:  I can give you a trivial counter-example to the false "hierarchy" you keep insisting on, if that makes things easier.

Coulomb's Law is a descriptive statement characterising a type of macroscopic electromagnetic behaviour - that is, the forces between electrostatic charges.
Quantum Field Theory (in this case, quantum electrodynamics) is the framework which accounts for the interaction that causes the above 'law' in its limiting case. Contrast classical electromagnetic theory, wherein coulombic interaction is taken as axiomatic (nb: in the mathematical sense). Quantum electrodynamics gives a rigorous derivation of Coulomb's law.

Now: which is more true?
en.wikipedia.org

Coulomb's law, orCoulomb's inverse-squarelaw, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. The lawwas first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles Augustin deCoulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism.

Seems like the law was used to develop the THEORY.

Going all 'lol dictionary' on the first word combination you recognise is not what I'd call reading comprehension.

You can't have a theory to explain observation unless you have observations to explain.

Whatever you think you're coyly implying, you're not. I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Do you have an answer for my question?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 01:57 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 01:39 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:38 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  Where did you deduce this "OUTSIDE" from?

Presupposition.

Delusion.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 02:03 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 01:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  en.wikipedia.org

Coulomb's law, orCoulomb's inverse-squarelaw, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. The lawwas first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles Augustin deCoulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism.

Seems like the law was used to develop the THEORY.

Who says that a theory can't be derived from a law? Are you saying it isn't possible that something that we thought we had an adequate explanation for was actually better explained by another discovery or that knowledge that came out of one set of knowledge can't reveal another that was previously unknown? If you think about it, quantum theory owes it's roots in Newton's laws. Those laws provided the foundation for the later development. You seem to have such a black and white way of looking at things. You seem to be under the impression that nothing in nature is intertwined.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 02:05 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 01:50 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  en.wikipedia.org

Coulomb's law, orCoulomb's inverse-squarelaw, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. The lawwas first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles Augustin deCoulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism.

Seems like the law was used to develop the THEORY.

Going all 'lol dictionary' on the first word combination you recognise is not what I'd call reading comprehension.

You can't have a theory to explain observation unless you have observations to explain.

Whatever you think you're coyly implying, you're not. I'm still not sure what you're getting at. Do you have an answer for my question?
They are most likely both true to some extent.

That doesn't change the fact that the theory stemmed from the law, or that the theory could change while the law stays the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 02:08 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 02:03 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 01:47 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  en.wikipedia.org

Coulomb's law, orCoulomb's inverse-squarelaw, is a law of physics describing the electrostatic interaction between electrically charged particles. The lawwas first published in 1785 by French physicist Charles Augustin deCoulomb and was essential to the development of the theory of electromagnetism.

Seems like the law was used to develop the THEORY.

Who says that a theory can't be derived from a law? Are you saying it isn't possible that something that we thought we had an adequate explanation for was actually better explained by another discovery or that knowledge that came out of one set of knowledge can't reveal another that was previously unknown? If you think about it, quantum theory owes it's roots in Newton's laws. Those laws provided the foundation for the later development. You seem to have such a black and white way of looking at things. You seem to be under the impression that nothing in nature is intertwined.
What a load of shit. All existence is intertwined, even if you can't grasp quantum mechanics or sub atomic particles. Which admittedly I have a very limited understanding of.

How did you deduce such from my statements?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-02-2016, 02:13 PM
RE: Why do theists come to this forum?
(11-02-2016 02:08 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(11-02-2016 02:03 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  Who says that a theory can't be derived from a law? Are you saying it isn't possible that something that we thought we had an adequate explanation for was actually better explained by another discovery or that knowledge that came out of one set of knowledge can't reveal another that was previously unknown? If you think about it, quantum theory owes it's roots in Newton's laws. Those laws provided the foundation for the later development. You seem to have such a black and white way of looking at things. You seem to be under the impression that nothing in nature is intertwined.
What a load of shit. All existence is intertwined, even if you can't grasp quantum mechanics or sub atomic particles. Which admittedly I have a very limited understanding of.

How did you deduce such from my statements?

You do not even need to be able to spell quantum to get it and I didn't even mention existence. Read what I wrote, dumbass. What you wrote gives the impression that you fail to understand terminology. My statement was merely to convey that a law can lead to a theory and vice versa. I am well aware that you posses a remedial understanding of science.

"If we are honest—and scientists have to be—we must admit that religion is a jumble of false assertions, with no basis in reality.
The very idea of God is a product of the human imagination."
- Paul Dirac
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: