Originally posted by kalrish
View Post
You ever heard of Scientific control? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control
An experiment without control is invalid, and this since a LONG time ago.
With such an assumption, you could go ahead and test that, and you would find it to be repeatable, yet that wouldn't prove there's such a god.
Really, you cannot argue science if you don't know the basics of it. Consider your whole point invalid, I'm answering it only for fun.
Newton's gravity laws are not valid because things do not behave as they state. What happens is that, at low speeds, the error is so small that our technology barely detects it.
Due to other obvious reasons you cannot claim there is an error if it is undetectable by the sensors used, so according to all evidence the above is still true.
In any case, it doesn't matter if it's only in corner cases that the error pops out. There's an error, and that's enough. Of course you can build many things in accordance to them and they will work. And this, by the way, is another argument for what I have said above: two centuries ago they built things in accordance to Newton's laws, and they worked fine, yet that they work fine do not and can not imply that Newton's laws are true, for that would be contradictory.
Newton's laws are true and correct within specific conditions, as they give the same answers as real-life measurements within these specific conditions, and still do so and will keep doing so.
Really, isn't something true if it is true within specific conditions now? Like the statement "the letter o is in the following word: word" This statement is true or false depending on conditions (is letter o in it?) and on the observed phenomenon (the word).
True ‘enough’!? That's quite mediocre logic for someone so fond of sciences.
If you ever even tried to think of science like something that wanted to reach "absolute all-encompassing truth that is true in any and all conditions", you are a complete moron and you should study what science is before wasting everyone's time.
This is not against science. What this is against are the beliefs that science is absolutely true and that there's an essential difference between science and so-called “superstition” or religions.
But both have assumptions, so they're not radically different.
It's like saying that cars and skyscrapers are the not "radically different" because both are physical objects.
You are using "radically different" in a wrong way, relearn english.
An example of this situation is your beloved constitution, before which any two persons, being of course two different persons, are yet both people, i.e., not radically different.
Comment