: : This is the good thing about science. You can show that the axiom X is untrue, thereby making the axiom not-X true; thereby coming closer to an accurate model.: : It's like playing 'higher or lower'; if the experimental data rules out 'higher', you can say 'lower' in the next experiment. Eventually you get to the point of being able to make accurate predictions of physical phenomena; which enables you to do things like use aircraft, cars, plastics, medicine and the like.
: So nothing in science can be taken for true, or verifiable. Thanks for the confirmation in relative science.
Nothing is definite; but science is falsifiable. You can show what isn't the case.
The theory that the Earth is flat is a primitive scientific one; it was shown to be demonstrably false, and thus discarded as a theory.
There is nothing about religion which can be shown to be "false"; since the entire framework is forever based on an unproveable. Thus religion cannot be science, as it is not falsifiable.
If a scientist theorizes that the sky is black during the day, simple experimentation will falsify the theory; and reinforce the opposite theory; namely that the sky is not black during the day.
Which part of this do you have problems with?
:
: : : As for verifiable "science", Heisenberg, for an example, had his Uncertainty Theory upgraded to level of "Principle" with no proof other than the observer's predetermined outcome.
: : 'Upgraded'?
: : Robert, I'm a qualified physicist and there is no difference in 'proved' status between a theory and a principle. A 'principle' is merely a theoretical mechanism within the theory as a whole.
: So Heisenberg's "Principle" isn't science.
Of course it's science. It is falsfiable and a theory which explains the observed phenomena; thus it is scientific.
It's not ultimately proved; but then, nothing in science is. We haven't proved irrefutably that the Sun exists; however, the evidence is pretty strong.
The fact that it is not 'proved' doesn't weaken it as a scientific theory; and the fact that it has not been disproved yet strengthens it as a scientific theory.
: : If the Bible is infallible, it constitutes proof of God.
: : If there is demonstrable proof of God, then God is not omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent.
: Infallibility has nothing to do with constituting proof. We don't have the tools to prove God's Truth. We're limited creatures, bound by our time/space dimensions. Just because we can't prove it all doesn't rule out its infalliblity.
Really? I've got any amount of observed physical data here which contradicts the literal reading of the Bible directly.
Although you can't prove the proposition "The Bible is literally true", we can provide a fair whack of repeatable evidence that says "The Bible is not literally true". According to formal logic, if you disprove P, you strengthen not-P as a proposition.
: It's your misunderstanding here and your blindness to see these two distinct facets. Its like you are always talking past me on this issue.
Possibly because you display a basic lack of understanding of a)logic and b) philosophy of science; and yet maintain that your alogical beliefs and unsubstantiable claims constitute some form of logical proof.
:
: : Therefore, either the Bible is not infallible or God is not absolute.
: Again there is no therefore, you are talking past the issue here. Again, proof and infallibility are two different items.
Really?
Is the Bible infallible - yes or no?
If the Bible is infallible, then God is infinite; because the Bible says God is.
There is no way a human being can assign a form or a shape to an infinite being; or it wouldn't be infinite. You can't define God if you believe God to be infinite.
If you cannot assign a form to God, you cannot say that any particular physical phenomenon is the act of God; as that would be defining God.
The Bible is a physical phenomenon; and as you said; "We don't have the tools to prove God's Truth."
If the Bible is infallible, it constitutes a physical phenomenon that provides evidence of God; but this goes directly against our inability to prove God - as you said, "We're limited creatures, bound by our time/space dimensions."
Either the Bible is not infallible, or you can define God.
If you can define God, God is not infinite.
The only way that the Bible can be infallible is if it provides physical proof of God; and if it does so, it is self-contradictory.
This is simple, simple logic; and you haven't even attempted to answer it so far.
: : And don't say that I sound distressed or annoyed; I'm neither, right now; I do not need your condescending forgiveness or superior platitudes (neither of which you are in a position to give).
: Perhaps you are indeed a bit tender underneath. Sorry for winding you up.
Not really; and your continued attempts to argue a lost point give the lie to your last statement. Of course you take this argument seriously, or you wouldn't still be here after two years of lost battles.
: : If the Bible said it was dark 24 hours a day, would you go against your senses because the Bible said so?
: I don't know that the Bible says that, so it is a bit of a red herring.
Not it's not; note the "If...". I'm not saying it does say it; I'm asking if you would disbelieve your physical senses if the Bible told you to.
: : Consider the words of good old Protestant Martin Luther; another famous anti-scientist speaking out against Copernicus' heliocentric theory (which is still a theory, by the way);
: : ``that fool [who would] reverse the entire art of astronomy. . . Joshua bade the Sun and not the Earth to stand still.''
: A standing still of the sun can be accomplished by a rotating of the earth off of its axis. The key here is to see that from the observers frame of reference.
For Joshua to achieve that, he would have to be moving as fast as the terminator; the day/night line marked by the Sun's progress across the Earth; only at this speed would the time appear to be unchanged; and thus the Sun not move in the sky.
The only way to do this demonstrably to observers would be to have Joshua and all the witnesses in the observing frame of reference moving eastwards at several hundred kilometres per hour; since this is the only terrestrial frame of reference which would result in the Sun appearing not to move.
No way, Robert.
Oh, and by the way, you know who originally formulated the theory of relativity? Galileo - and the Church nearly killed him for it.
Gideon.
