Nothingserious:


It’s faith/belief/presuppositions as we know it and as most scientists talk about it now.
If the conditions change then this discussion changes too. Scientists haven’t changed the empirical data stance based on the presuppositions I gave you before. So why should we talk about what they would say if the conditions change?

Quote 5 scientists that say that empirical data is based on presuppositions.

At least we all agree science never created the forces and laws in nature but only observe them based on presuppositions( beliefs, faith) that the nature they met and observe will not change.

You know need to show where scientists have stated this presupposition.

You know faith and reason are basic in religion.
That is given and is not at contention.
What is at contention is the assumption that science works on strict empiricism.
No scientific law has ever been scientifically proven, yet we assume they are all valid.

Once again, quote 5 scientists who say this.

Most decisions arrived at after scientific tests and hypotheses are carried out are still subjected to philosophical decisions on what is the best and what the result aims to achieve and what the financiers of the project have in mind as end result.

I would also need 5 examples of this.

All of science is based on presuppositions/faith/belief in the laws of nature present before the scientific studies.

Your examples will go along way to prove the validity of your claims. Otherwise we shall discard them as your exhortation to us to believe what you say.

LordReed:


Quote 5 scientists that say that empirical data is based on presuppositions.



You know need to show where scientists have stated this presupposition.



Once again, quote 5 scientists who say this.



I would also need 5 examples of this.



Your examples will go along way to prove the validity of your claims. Otherwise we shall discard them as your exhortation to us to believe what you say.

You could start by showing me any scientific law that has been scientifically proven.

Nothingserious:


You could start by showing me any scientific law that has been scientifically proven.

You made the claim, provide the evidence. When I make a claim ask me for evidence.

Nothingserious:
You didn’t deny the fact that science is hinged on presuppositions ( faith and belief) that the conditions in nature that allow scientific observations will remain same for same laws to exist.

"Presuppositions", are not "faith and belief".

You don't have "presuppositions about God, and you obviously do not have "faith and belief" in science.

Please do correct me if I am wrong about you.

LordReed:


You made the claim, provide the evidence. When I make a claim ask me for evidence.

Lol!

You know there are no scientific proof for scientific laws. That’s a fact you can take to the bank.

I am not asking you to prove it. There is none.

Any day you have it, you may present them to us. For now we all continue to ASSUME AND BELIEVE the scientific laws are all valid for all our scientific observations.

budaatum:


"Presuppositions", are not "faith and belief".

You don't have "presuppositions about God, and you obviously do not have "faith and belief" in science.

Please do correct me if I am wrong about you.

You are playing around syntax but left the substance about the belief of scientists that all the laws of nature will remain same for scientific observations and principles to keep working. You haven’t convinced me otherwise.

It may also interest you to know there are really no scientific proofs for scientific laws. Those are also based on assumptions that they are all true and valid.

You may object to that if you wish to. Unless you present empirical objections, my claim remains valid.

Additionally scientists conduct experiments and come up with various outcomes.
They further make philosophical decisions on what to discard and what to uphold based on prior expectation from financiers, the scientists worldview and the scientists’ convictions.

Nothingserious:
You are playing around syntax but left the substance about the belief of scientists that all the laws of nature will remain same for scientific observations and principles to keep working. You haven’t convinced me otherwise.

I don't need to convince you, Nothing, I just need to correct your misconceptions so you don't mislead others.

Scientists do not believe "all the laws of nature will remain same". Experience will show them that 'laws' are tentative and ever changing due to further discovery. An example is the laws of Newton being superseded by Einstein. Its why scientists can't believe. They know further evidence may prove their belief to be false.

Nothingserious:
It may also interest you to know there are really no scientific proofs for scientific laws. Those are also based on assumptions that they are all true and valid. You may object to that if you wish to. Unless you present empirical objections, my claim remains valid.

I don't think you believe this, but maybe your cup floats when you drop it. Do let me know once you've scientifically checked.

Nothingserious:
Additionally scientists conduct experiments and come up with various outcomes.

If they perform the exact same experiment and come up with various outcomes, they can't claim a law.

Basically, if you and I perform the experiment of drop cup, and mine drops while your's floats, we will conduct further science to see why instead of us forming a law.

Nothingserious:
They further make philosophical decisions on what to discard and what to uphold based on prior expectation from financiers, the scientists worldview and the scientists’ convictions.

This last statement is just to show why you are antiscience.

Do know that not all scientists agree with each other. That's why they need experiments to be repeatable. Basically, if you drop a cup and it floats, and I drop a cup under the same conditions and it too floats, only then can we come up with a floating cup law, worldview and philosophy, and even then there'll be your sort constantly resisting and trying to disprove our floating cups philosophy wrong and false.

There's immense work still going on attempting to prove Einstein wrong.

Nothingserious:


Lol!

You know there are no scientific proof for scientific laws. That’s a fact you can take to the bank.

I am not asking you to prove it. There is none.

Any day you have it, you may present them to us. For now we all continue to ASSUME AND BELIEVE the scientific laws are all valid for all our scientific observations.

I don't know any such thing. You made a claim, provide the evidence.

I do not believe what you are saying. All you need to do to prove the correctness of your assertions is provide 5 scientists saying there is no scientific proof for scientific laws.

LordReed:


I don't know any such thing. You made a claim, prove the evidence.

I do not believe what you are saying. All you need to do to prove the correctness of your assertions is provide 5 scientists saying there is no scientific proof for scientific laws.

In secondary school I remember how they try deriving quadratic equations from 1st principles and it was easily done and shown.
I also remember us trying to prove some theorems in geometry with a QED at the end when one was done.

Even in calculus, derivatives were always done from 1st principles.

I can imagine anyone telling me that the sum of angels in a semi-circle isn’t equal to 180 degrees. I would gladly pick up a basic geometry text and show how that’s a fatal error.

Here I threw a scientific challenge to you and expect you to talk to refute my claims in empirical language. Is there any scientific proof for scientific laws? Just pick up one and show there is.

If you don’t have the proof, I put it to you that all scientific laws are BELIEVED AND ASSUMED to be scientifically true and valid. They are not proven to be so.

Mind you: I am not in any way attacking science or belittling its advances. I am simply telling you about assumptions/beliefs/presuppositions made that are not entirely empirical but are still valid.

You don’t need to interview many scientists to tell you about philosophical decisions they make at the highest level of scholarship on choice from many scientific outcomes.

budaatum:

I don't need to convince you, Nothing, I just need to correct your misconceptions so you don't mislead others.

Scientists do not believe "all the laws of nature will remain same". Experience will show them that 'laws' are tentative and ever changing due to further discovery. An example is the laws of Newton being superseded by Einstein. Its why scientists can't believe. They know further evidence may prove their belief to be false.


I don't think you believe this, but maybe your cup floats when you drop it. Do let me know once you've scientifically checked.


If they perform the exact same experiment and come up with various outcomes, they can't claim a law.

Basically, if you and I perform the experiment of drop cup, and mine drops while your's floats, we will conduct further science to see why instead of us forming a law.


This last statement is just to show why you are antiscience.

Do know that not all scientists agree with each other. That's why they need experiments to be repeatable. Basically, if you drop a cup and it floats, and I drop a cup under the same conditions and it too floats, only then can we come up with a floating cup law, worldview and philosophy, and even then there'll be your sort constantly resisting and trying to disprove our floating cups philosophy wrong and false.

There's immense work still going on attempting to prove Einstein wrong.

Anti-science? Lol

That’s a new one. I have neither defended nor attacked science here. I am simply stating the obvious facts. No scientific text will say belief but the bedrock is belief/assumptions that the laws of nature will be same for scientific laws to hold.

I don’t think you have any scientific proof for scientific laws. There are none. You don’t have to argue it if there are any. You could point that out to us.

I remember a father and a son were given separate awards( not sure if it were Nobel prizes in physics ) for their conflicting works on matter being continuous or discrete. Yes both got them even with the conflicts. Once I get the names I will drop them. Why didn’t they get same results from same experiments?

Do you mean to say something empirically tested and proven could turn out to be wrong tomorrow? Why would that be possible? Do you mean to say most scientific researches done were products of guess work and not certainty?
So is it safe to say that scientists BELIEVED certain Newtonian theories were valid before but now BELIEVE Einstein’s are better? Shouldn’t empirical data be constant?

Nothingserious:


In secondary school I remember how they try deriving quadratic equations from 1st principles and it was easily done and shown.
I also remember us trying to prove some theorems in geometry with a QED at the end when one was done.

Even in calculus, derivatives were always done from 1st principles.

I can imagine anyone telling me that the sum of angels in a semi-circle isn’t equal to 180 degrees. I would gladly pick up a basic geometry text and show how that’s a fatal error.

Here I threw a scientific challenge to you and expect you to talk to refute my claims in empirical language. Is there any scientific proof for scientific laws? Just pick up one and show there is.

If you don’t have the proof, I put it to you that all scientific laws are BELIEVED AND ASSUMED to be scientifically true and valid. They are not proven to be so.

Mind you: I am not in any way attacking science or belittling its advances. I am simply telling you about assumptions/beliefs/presuppositions made that are not entirely empirical but are still valid.

You don’t need to interview many scientists to tell you about philosophical decisions they make at the highest level of scholarship on choice from many scientific outcomes.

I didn't say there was scientific proof, when I do ask me to provide the proof.

You made a claim, back it up. I think that is a simple enough request.

I asked you to quote where these scientists are saying these things or you are just putting words in their mouths.

This is the thing with folks like you, you'll ask me a question, I would respond with little hesitation but when it comes to you, you will need to do a whole song and dance show before you respond.

LordReed:


I didn't say there was scientific proof, when I do ask me to provide the proof.

You made a claim, back it up. I think that is a simple enough request.

I asked you to quote where these scientists are saying these things or you are just putting words in their mouths.

This is the thing with folks like you, you'll ask me a question, I would respond with little hesitation but when it comes to you, you will need to do a whole song and dance show before you respond.

That’s okay.
I will cut you some slack.
There are no scientific proofs for scientific laws.
I didn’t put words into any scientist. If you were a scientist I don’t think I have put any words into your mouth. If I say the sum of angles in a triangle isn’t 180^, you could show me how it is not. You don’t keep singing “show me 5 scientist a who said so”. You just say it is not so based on this proof.

Why are we playing around words on whether the proofs exist or not?
Science has done great things for us all. I appreciate science . I am pro-science.
But I don’t shy away from saying the limitations of science unless you don’t think science has limitations.

You just feel so bad that our darling science is no all empirical data as most of you assume . So it pains you that there are underlying assumptions and belief systems within science that are not empirically tested.

Maybe your a priori position is scientism and strict verificationism. Such have limits and deficiencies.

Nothingserious:


That’s okay.
I will cut you some slack.
There are no scientific proofs for scientific laws.
I didn’t put words into any scientist. If you were a scientist I don’t think I have put any words into your mouth. If I say the sum of angles in a triangle isn’t 180^, you could show me how it is not. You don’t keep singing “show me 5 scientist a who said so”. You just say it is not so based on this proof.

Why are we playing around words on whether the proofs exist or not?
Science has done great things for us all. I appreciate science . I am pro-science.
But I don’t shy away from saying the limitations of science unless you don’t think science has limitations.

You just feel so bad that our darling science is no all empirical data as most of you assume . So it pains you that there are underlying assumptions and belief systems within science that are not empirically tested.

Maybe your a priori position is scientism and strict verificationism. Such have limits and deficiencies.

I have made no claim for you to demand such proof from me, on the other hand you have made a claim and all requests for you to provide your evidence has only led to a song and dance.

Your only recourse now is to start making up stuff about me and believing it. LMAO!

LordReed:


I have made no claim for you to demand such proof from me, on the other hand you have made a claim and all requests for you to provide your evidence has only led to a song and dance.

Your only recourse now is to start making up stuff about me and believing it. LMAO!

You are just funny.
So I tell you there are no scientific proofs for any of our scientific laws and you are just talking. I don’t need 5 scientists to show that.
Rather ALL the scientists in the world know that. ALL!

None has the proofs. ALL work on assumptions that the laws are valid.

You can keep up with the rhetorics but they really mean nothing. Go meet your scientists and ask them whether they have scientific proofs for their laws.

Nothingserious:


You are just funny.
So I tell you there are no scientific proofs for any of our scientific laws and you are just talking. I don’t need 5 scientists to show that.
Rather ALL the scientists in the world know that. ALL!

None has the proofs. ALL work on assumptions that the laws are valid.

You can keep up with the rhetorics but they really mean nothing. Go meet your scientists and ask them whether they have scientific proofs for their laws.

Show me 5 scientists saying there is no proof, since you say all of them believe so then it shouldn't be hard for you to quote 5 of them saying so.

You made the claim, you get to provide the evidence.

But sure keep beating around the bush and doing your song and dance. LMAO!

Nothingserious:

I don’t think you have any scientific proof for scientific laws. There are none. You don’t have to argue it if there are any. You could point that out to us.

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.

Nothingserious:
Why didn’t they get same results from same experiments?

They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.

Nothingserious:
Do you mean to say something empirically tested and proven could turn out to be wrong tomorrow?

Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.

Nothingserious:
So is it safe to say that scientists BELIEVED certain Newtonian theories were valid before but now BELIEVE Einstein’s are better? Shouldn’t empirical data be constant?

It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

budaatum:

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.


They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.


Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.



It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

Are you saying now that scientific laws are just proven by watching a cup drop and fall?
Are all the laws proven in a simple way as that?
Isn’t it the same way philosophical and religious experiences are observed? So we could lump all together and say they are verified same way.
I doubt that is all there is to empirical proofs for science.
That again is not a scientific proof for scientific law.

Heinsberg, Niels Bohr, Aage Borh, Einstein all got Nobel Prizes in physics for conflicting works on matter and the atom. There were a lot of debates on whether matter come in discrete packets or in continuous forms.
Even same year Einstein and Bohr were awarded the prizes, they had heated debates on who was right yet the panel awarded both.
Many of the scientists BELIEVED one of their favorites was right. Even today, scientists BELIEVE in works of their contemporaries or their revered colleagues.

Can we strictly say science considerations at such levels and panels were strictly empirical without any other a priori or philosophical considerations? No we cannot. If they were, the panels would have come up with just a single decision.

budaatum:

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.


They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.


Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.



It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

Ask, seek and knock is what every human basically does. That’s what people do in religion.
That’s what people do in philosophy.
So this method of science is really no different from our religious style.
Can you then conclude that science and religion use same investigative tools of ask, seek and knock?

budaatum:

Perhaps a definition of science might help you. I propose it means "ask, knock, seek with all your senses".

Now, drop a cup and tell me you do not observe the law that states, 'if you drop something it will fall to the ground'.


They obviously did not perform the exact same experiment, though I better wait for you to get your facts straight regarding who this father and son are.


Empirical means, 'based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic'.

Yes. Prior knowledge might have been flawed. The equipment to observe might have been limited. The test itself might have been flawed, as could be the understanding of that which is observed, etc.

One can not expect human observation or experience to be constant, which is why Genesis 1 is superseded flawed 'science', and why scientists are constantly asking and knocking and seeking, as in, doing science, instead of believing as you claim.



It is indeed safe to say some scientists 'believed' Newtonian theories were valid before Einsteins, but anyone who experienced what you call a belief in Newton would be silly to now believe Einstein since Einstein too might be proven to be not so valid as first thought. Or don't you expect scientists to learn from what they observe in the past?

Einstein was a scientist, and he obviously did not believe Newton, which is why he sought and knocked and asked. Once you believe, you'd assume you know, and would therefore not continue to ask and knock and seek.

“Sometimes, when people say "science requires faith", what they are trying to get at is the idea that scientists have to rely on assumptions that they can't prove. For instance, scientists have to assume that induction works (e.g. that you can generalize about the future laws of the universe by looking at the past laws). If tomorrow the laws of physics were suddenly different than they ever were before, science would be in pretty deep water. The thing is though that all methods for drawing conclusions about the world rely on some hidden assumptions, so saying this is true for science isn't saying much. In fact, the deep rooted assumptions that science relies on are pretty modest.”

Sometimes faith is used as an alternative to reason, a way to designate (and sometimes denigrate) beliefs that are aren't based on arguments or evidence, or that aren't assessed critically. On this view, science and faith almost certainly conflict; science is all about arguments, evidence and critical assessment.

At the other extreme, faith can simply mean something like a guiding assumption or presupposition, and on this view, science does require faith. Science as an enterprise is based on the premise that we can generalize from our experience, or as "The Mathematician" put it, that induction works.

Somewhere in between these extremes are the more interesting possibilities.“

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2013/09/23/225239775/does-science-require-faith

Nothingserious:
“Sometimes, when people say "science requires faith", what they are trying to get at is the idea that scientists have to rely on assumptions that they can't prove.

If they can't prove it, no amount of faith will possibly make it true. Take the cup I've asked you to drop for instance. I have faith that if you drop a cup it would not float in air.

The builders of the Apollo had faith that it would get to the moon and back. Their faith was based on the knowledge they had of building and testing quite a lot of Apollos prior to the one that landed on the moon instead of merely believing the first one would land on the moon and return to earth.

I'll check your link later.

Nothingserious:
Ask, seek and knock is what every human basically does. That’s what people do in religion. That’s what people do in philosophy.

So this method of science is really no different from our religious style.
Can you then conclude that science and religion use same investigative tools of ask, seek and knock?

I was hoping you would realise I am taking it from religion, Christianity, to be precise, so you might note that I am calling the person who said it, a scientist. But it unfortunately is not what most religious people do, for most believe without asking and knocking and seeking, as in, without testing what they claim to believe. Its precisely why someone is written to have ridiculed belief by claiming its a thing [url=https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=James%202%3A19&version=NIV]demons and do that makes them tremble[/url]. Basically, they build their faith on untested sand.

If, or rather, when religious people, Nigerian religious people I mean, learn to ask and knock and seek instead of merely believing as we currently do, we will say, "Let there be Light", and there will be Light.

.

Nothingserious:

Do you mean to say something empirically tested and proven could turn out to be wrong tomorrow? Why would that be possible? Do you mean to say most scientific researches done were products of guess work and not certainty?
So is it safe to say that scientists BELIEVED certain Newtonian theories were valid before but now BELIEVE Einstein’s are better? Shouldn’t empirical data be constant?

If this is what you mean by no proof then I can see your confusion. Like I already stated the physical laws are descriptions of observed phenomena. What scientists are doing is tying various phenomena into a concrete explanation. In the case of Newton's gravitational laws it was found that they did not sufficiently account for other phenomena so it is not that Newton's laws are no longer valid rather it is the case that their scope is too narrow. This is where Einstein's General and Special Relativity now gives gravity a much more finessed meaning and thus explaining more phenomena than Newton. An example will be why light bends in space. Newton's laws could not explain it but Einstein's theories do.

Nothingserious:


You could start by showing me any scientific law that has been scientifically proven.

Come on man! It is a scientific law, as in a law you can observe with your own senses, that if you drop a cup it will always engage with the floor. You can experiment a million times and your cup will always engage with the floor or whatever is beneath it.

It is the same use her own senses that Eve did and what freed her and her man from naked slavery in the Garden of Eden. Unfortunately, some are so afraid of dying that they cover their own eyes so they can not see.

Here is an example of ask and seek and knock with all your heart and mind. Note how it continues today, some trying to prove right and some wrong.

Nothingserious:

Are you saying now that scientific laws are just proven by watching a cup drop and fall?
Are all the laws proven in a simple way as that?

The key point is experimentation, as opposed to believing what you think might happen to the cup without testing your belief.

And yes, that is how science is done. You test your assumed beliefs so that you may actually know.

Nothingserious:
Isn’t it the same way philosophical and religious experiences are observed? So we could lump all together and say they are verified same way.
I doubt that is all there is to empirical proofs for science.
That again is not a scientific proof for scientific law.

If you lump "philosophical and religious experiences" with scientific experimentation, serious people will not take you seriously at all.

In fact, religious experiences are not subject to scientific scrutiny, and if they were, belief is not the word you'd use to describe them. You would for instance never say, you believe your mother is your mother unless you are ignorant of whom your mother is. I am assuming you know who your mother is, of course. And after years of paying tithes so some pastor can fuel a plane, you are bound to recognise if it improves your own existence in earth or not. Unless you refuse to consider the evidence, of course.

Nothingserious:
Heinsberg, Niels Bohr, Aage Borh, Einstein all got Nobel Prizes in physics for conflicting works on matter and the atom. There were a lot of debates on whether matter come in discrete packets or in continuous forms.
Even same year Einstein and Bohr were awarded the prizes, they had heated debates on who was right yet the panel awarded both.

That's the beauty of science, and why I so love my Bible. At its time, it was all that was known, and just as the scientists above were recognised for moving knowledge further than it hitherto was, so too would I have awarded the Nobel to the Bible. That does not mean one should believe it, but recognise it is the shoulder of giants on which others have stood to see much further.

Nothingserious:

Many of the scientists BELIEVED one of their favorites was right. Even today, scientists BELIEVE in works of their contemporaries or their revered colleagues.

If they had believed, they would not have continued searching, just as religious believers think they know so stop asking and knocking and seeking. If they did continue seeking they'd be the salt of the earth instead of ignorant believers.

Nothingserious:
Can we strictly say science considerations at such levels and panels were strictly empirical without any other a priori or philosophical considerations? No we cannot. If they were, the panels would have come up with just a single decision.

Ask and knock and seek with all your heart and mind and being is not something that should stop. If it did, we'd be here banging drums to communicate with one another over the vast distance between us, and might forever remain naked and ignorant and in darkness like we are in Nigeria.

When we stop believing that which those who brought it to us have stopped believing, and instead ask and knock and seek till we understand, we will say, "Let their be Light", and Nigeria will enlighten the entire world.

In Jesus Mighty Name, Amen.

budaatum:

The key point is experimentation, as opposed to believing what you think might happen to the cup without testing your belief.

And yes, that is how science is done. You test your assumed beliefs so that you may actually know.


If you lump "philosophical and religious experiences" with scientific experimentation, serious people will not take you seriously at all.

In fact, religious experiences are not subject to scientific scrutiny, and if they were, belief is not the word you'd use to describe them. You would for instance never say, you believe your mother is your mother unless you are ignorant of whom your mother is. I am assuming you know who your mother is, of course. And after years of paying tithes so some pastor can fuel a plane, you are bound to recognise if it improves your own existence in earth or not. Unless you refuse to consider the evidence, of course.



That's the beauty of science, and why I so love my Bible. At its time, it was all that was known, and just as the scientists above were recognised for moving knowledge further than it hitherto was, so too would I have awarded the Nobel to the Bible. That does not mean one should believe it, but recognise it is the shoulder of giants on which others have stood to see much further.


If they had believed, they would not have continued searching, just as religious believers think they know so stop asking and knocking and seeking. If they did continue seeking they'd be the salt of the earth instead of ignorant believers.


Ask and knock and seek with all your heart and mind and being is not something that should stop. If it did, we'd be here banging drums to communicate with one another over the vast distance between us, and might forever remain naked and ignorant and in darkness like we are in Nigeria.

When we stop believing that which those who brought it to us have stopped believing, and instead ask and knock and seek till we understand, we will say, "Let their be Light", and Nigeria will enlighten the entire world.

In Jesus Mighty Name, Amen.

You contradicted yourself all through those write up.

You said no one will take me seriously for lumping religious and philosophical experiences with sciences. Why would I take anyone seriously for viewing religious/supernatural and philosophical experiences from the lens of natural scientific/empirical data? That leads to bad science and bad religion.


Why would scientists within same year award nobels to 2 scientists whose works are at variance with one another and whose work led to heated debates on who was right? Aren’t we looking at empirical data again? Should we find gray areas in empiricism? If there are gray areas, it implies science is hinged on philosophical decisions on ultimate decision.
Old Borh got a Nobel for saying matter existed in one form. Young Borh got another Nobel for countering the father. If the data used in all of this is strictly empirical, why would the data change after a while?

We have known trees for years. Any day any time they will always be trees. Why should we think they are no longer trees after say 100 years? So science is influenced by philosophical worldviews that make scientists BELIEVE in certain scientific results and CHANGE their beliefs after some time.

Again, observations on a falling cup are just as observations on the effect of my study of the Bible on my spiritual growth.
The cup falls and I see it. I grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Jesus Christ and I see it. Is that the empirical science ? That’s an observation that can be made in religion or philosophy.

And you didn’t really show me any scientific proof for scientific laws.

Nothingserious:


You contradicted yourself all through those write up.

You said no one will take me seriously for lumping religious and philosophical experiences with sciences. Why would I take anyone seriously for viewing religious/supernatural and philosophical experiences from the lens of natural scientific/empirical data? That leads to bad science and bad religion.


Why would scientists within same year award nobels to 2 scientists whose works are at variance with one another and whose work led to heated debates on who was right? Aren’t we looking at empirical data again? Should we find gray areas in empiricism? If there are gray areas, it implies science is hinged on philosophical decisions on ultimate decision.
Old Borh got a Nobel for saying matter existed in one form. Young Borh got another Nobel for countering the father. If the data used in all of this is strictly empirical, why would the data change after a while?

We have known trees for years. Any day any time they will always be trees. Why should we think they are no longer trees after say 100 years? So science is influenced by philosophical worldviews that make scientists BELIEVE in certain scientific results and CHANGE their beliefs after some time.

Again, observations on a falling cup are just as observations on the effect of my study of the Bible on my spiritual growth.
The cup falls and I see it. I grow in the knowledge of our Lord and Jesus Christ and I see it. Is that the empirical science ? That’s an observation that can be made in religion or philosophy.

And you didn’t really show me any scientific proof for scientific laws.

You haven't given examples of what you consider as empirical proofs

Nothingserious:

Why would scientists within same year award nobels to 2 scientists whose works are at variance with one another and whose work led to heated debates on who was right?

If we ask you to mention these scientists now you'll start another song and dance. LoL

LordReed:


If we ask you to mention these scientists now you'll start another song and dance. LoL

Senior Borh and Einstein.

Note the word “arbitrary”. That’s not anything empirical. It comes down to philosophical decisions.

“Bohr disliked it because it made the choice of mathematical solution arbitrary. Bohr did not like a scientist having to choose between equations.”

“Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.”

Junior Borh was later awarded a Nobel for countering another concept by the Senior Bohr.

Why would empirical data change overtime?
And you want to use caring data to test eternal truths of God, the Bible and religion?

You still flopped at the scientific proofs challenge. I hope you keep that in ur subconsciousness inspire of your 5 scientists reggae music.

Crystyano:



You haven't given examples of what you consider as empirical proofs

Pls follow the discussion.

I asked whether there are any scientific proofs for all our scientific laws? There are none. We work on the ASSUMPTIONS that they are valid. That’s all. That’s not empirical. If you have any contrary to what I said, present them.
You know what empirical data is when it comes to scientific observations, theories and laws.

Would you like to talk about the reasons strict empirical data change and lead to arbitrary decisions like in the case of Nuel Borh and Einstein? And then later Heinsberg and Junior Bohr. Everyone is using empirical data that should strictly provide a standard non-varying data yet all had varying opinions. Some of these opinions are yet to be agreed in on quantum physics, matter-energy-duality debates.

Nothingserious:


Senior Borh and Einstein.

Note the word “arbitrary”. That’s not anything empirical. It comes down to philosophical decisions.

“Bohr disliked it because it made the choice of mathematical solution arbitrary. Bohr did not like a scientist having to choose between equations.”

“Even with their opposing theories, both were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922: Bohr for his atomic model, and Einstein for his work on the photoelectric effect (instead of his then-controversial theory of relativity). So how did the two physicists receive prizes for the same thing in the same year? Einstein was actually awarded the 1921 prize a year late, due to a technicality.”

Junior Borh was later awarded a Nobel for countering another concept by the Senior Bohr.

Why would empirical data change overtime?
And you want to use caring data to test eternal truths of God, the Bible and religion?

You still flopped at the scientific proofs challenge. I hope you keep that in ur subconsciousness inspire of your 5 scientists reggae music.

Bwahahahahaha! OMFD! Do you even read anything beyond whatever confirms your delusions? Einstein was awarded the prize in 1921 while Bohr was awarded the prize in 1922 so where did you get this dumb idea they were awarded the same prize in the same year for opposing views?


When you give me 5 scientists saying what you say they said, I will produce evidence for 5 scientific laws. We can see the alacrity with which you answered this particular question because you obviously gleaned it from a poorly written website but you can't find anything to back up your other dumbass take. LMFAO!