I said
Your the one that is assuming. I am the one that is trying to get you to focus on Jews and Christians. The bible.
Science--A strong delusion
- Thread starter Squeaky
- Start date
I said
Your the one that is assuming. I am the one that is trying to get you to focus on Jews and Christians. The bible.
You said that mathematics is the "only one science that is utter truth".
Mathematics IS NOT science! It is a language that science uses but that doesn't make it science itself. Mathematics does not replace observation, hypothesis, experimentation and multiple, independent confirmation. Mathematics is a tool of science but it is no more or less scientific than any other language or the nearest microscope or test tube.
As I said, you can tell all the lies you want with mathematics and very often maths have no real world corollary. Your faith in mathematics as "utter truth" is just that, faith.
Clete
popsthebuilder
New member
There is no science without math. If you believe there to be then provide support showing such please.
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
popsthebuilder
New member
None of that negates the fact that all observable existence can be perfectly described using the scientific language of mathematics. Nor does it deny that all science that is true uses mathematics. I never said that math and numbers cannot be manipulated. So please explain why you keep insisting that I am lying.
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
I said
You need to read the OP. Its clear that science is no more than a strong delusion for non believers. Science cant get you into heaven, but it can keep you out.
popsthebuilder
New member
I'm sorry, but if you think there is no truth in something because it won't get you to heaven then, well; you must be really confused. Your entire statement rubs me the wrong way; as if desire of a destination or placement is good or right motive.
If a man kills another then that person they killed is physically dead.
The proceeding statement is true, however the action nor statement will get anyone to heaven.
Do you see the problem with your logic, or are you going to try to say logic is carnal, and too wrong?
peace
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
I said
I'm sorry you don't understand. But the only truth for a born again Christian should be the Word of God, Jesus Christ because the Word came through Him. And the Holy Spirit. Everything else is a maybe.
John 18:38
38 Pilate said to Him, "What is truth?" And when he had said this, he went out again to the Jews, and said to them, "I find no fault in Him at all.
(NKJ)
John 17:17
17 "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth.
(NKJ)
I Jn 5:6
6 This is He who came by water and blood-- Jesus Christ; not only by water, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
(NKJ)
exminister
Well-known member
The Egyptians, Greeks and Romans all performed surgery, crude by today's standards, but did performed there. They had a pretty good understanding of the body.
popsthebuilder
New member
I deny none of that, only that truth is strictly limited to the Spirit. I mean according to you if the only truth is Christ then the meer thought of opposition to the Christ is false, as opposed to the action.
In scripture many things are identified as not of the Spirit, and though these things are not life it is still true that they exist.
peace friend
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
I said
Look I can only show you what the Word says, and claim I believe it. Its ridiculous to argue over it.
[Mat 4:4
4 But He answered and said, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.' "
[Luk 4:4
4 But Jesus answered him, saying, "It is written, 'Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.' "
Bull!
You clearly have no experience with dealing with the theory vs reality. Mathematics is great for theory but the reality is always fuzzier - always. There are variables that you simply cannot know.
If you're suggesting that physical processes can be perfectly described IF all variables are accounted for then you still have to admit that such is a theoretic proposition.
Bull!
Science (whether it was called that or not) pre-existed mathematics. The first human being who discovered the function of seeds and understood how to plant a crop was using what we would call a scientific process. No mathematics necessary.
Those in ancient Egypt who figured out what kidneys do, didn't make rigorous mathematical arguments to support their suppositions nor was it necessary for them to do so in order for what they were doing to be considered science.
It is not necessary to even know what numbers are to make a rationally sound, scientific association between lightning and thunder or between light sources and shadows or between flowers and plant reproduction or between excessive bleeding and death or any number of other things that can be learned through a purely scientific process that is entirely devoid of any math.
I quoted you directly. There is no hint of me suggesting that you are lying. You are wrong but that isn't the same thing.
Mathematics is not science and science is certainly not fundamentally predicated upon the use of mathematics. If anything, it's the other way around, although I'm not even sure that would be accurate.
A mathematical proof is NOT a scientific proof. In fact, if your mathematics does not produce any prediction that can be tested by experimental observation then no matter how eloquent the math is, it is not science - period (e.g. Quantum Mechanics). Your comment about mathematics being the only pure science is not only wrong, it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. I might add, however, that you're in good company on that score. Ever since Einstein and perhaps a bit before that, establishment science has been dominated by the mathematician to the point that many so-called "scientists" don't bother with anything else other than the mathematics. The result being, a lost century of real scientific progress in the arena of cosmology in particular.
Clete
popsthebuilder
New member
So you are arguing that before man came to realize the difference between one seed and two that he know of the scientific process.
This is pointless.
I'm not going to sit here and argue about such nonsense for no good reason.
I agreed that math was a scientific language, but you can't even admit to accusing me falsely. What science works without math? What branch? What field. The process of guessing at the outcome of a given circumstance must be predicated by controls. Do you know what a control is? It generally has to do with amounts, and levels/ constants. Guess what symbolism is used to accurately describe said constants.... and variables.....couldnt be numbers.
You cannot have a hypothesis or any understanding of anything without numbers.
Numbers are even seemingly fairly significant in scripture. The numbers 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 11, 12.
I feel like I'm on freakin sesame street. Just call me the illiterate count, ah, ah, ah....
peace
peace
Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
I said
From what I have seen in the old testament God taught math when He told them about the two trees in the garden of Eden.
[Mat 23:24
24 "Blind guides, who strain out a gnat and swallow a camel!
[2Ti 2:14
14 Remind [them] of these things, charging [them] before the Lord not to strive about words to no profit, to the ruin of the hearers.
Its wrong to discuss some things for the sake of flexing ones intellectual muscles.
[2Ti 2:23
23 But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife.
Ancient man was pretty darn smart if you ask me. Heck, just go back to the Civil War of America and try to read a letter that a soldier wrote to his girl back home, it's hard to understand because we are getting worse, not better (as evolutionists would have you believe), with each generation. That letter is more complex than what a soldier would write today to his loved ones.
Then you read the Bible and realize that what is said therein is quite complex.
The ancients were smart people, brilliant compared to today's best scientists. The only reason we are more sophisticated in our technologies today is because we "stand on the shoulders of giants," as Isaac Newton said.
Ah, yes, back in the old days of the need to balance the 4 humors for good health. Black bile, yellow bile, phlegm and blood. That still work?
It was Hippocrates, a Greek, that developed the four humors theory, not an Egyptian. They were separated by over a thousand years. If you intend to come across as being clever at least try to be accurate.
I said
I think your right, even the Word of God says so.
Eccl 1:8-12
8 All things are full of labor; man cannot express it. The eye is not satisfied with seeing, nor the ear filled with hearing.
9 That which has been is what will be, that which is done is what will be done, and there is nothing new under the sun.
10 Is there anything of which it may be said, "See, this is new"? It has already been in ancient times before us.
11 There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come by those who will come after.
12 I, the Preacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem.
(NKJ)
I have always wondered if the reason for all the catastrophes increasing to man kind. Is because science keeps trying to accomplish things without God.
Last edited:
Undoubtedly this is so but that isn't what I'm arguing. I'm arguing, and I think you know this, that mathematics is not science. Mathematics can be scientific if done properly but that can only happen when the science has been done correctly and when the mathematics are based on and proceeds from the actual science.
You would if you had an argument to make.
The thread is all still here for everyone to read. I didn't accuse you of anything aside from having stated something that was false. You'd have had to say something you knew was false in order for it to be a lie. I never made any such accusation and you know it.
In fact, because you know it, this accusation of yours amounts to a lie.
Feel better?
All science, all branches, all fields. Science is NOT fundamentally about math - period.
Mathematics is obviously used extensively and to good effect in many, if not most cases. But you can, and scientists often do, go way too far with the mathematics. Especially theoretical physicists as well as climatologists.
Of course, you can!
I predict that the sun will rise tomorrow after having set tonight.
I predict that if I set a ball on an inclined plane, it will roll down the plane rather than up it.
I predict that an object in motion will remain in motion unless and until acted upon by a force.
Further, the numbers to which you refer, things like measurements of volume, temperature, distance, time etc. are all arbitrary. An inch is an inch because we call it that, not because of the objectively independent nature of distance. Same goes for every unit of measure you can name. If an inch or a degree or a second where 21.546389% bigger or smaller, the mathematics would still work so long as you were consistent throughout. Guess what that means? It means that mathematics is not "utter truth". If you think otherwise, then attempt to formulate an argument that proceeds from a fundamentally arbitrary premise to an absolute conclusion if you like. Good luck with that. Presuming that mathematics is "utter truth" is tacitly making that exact claim.
I'm not arguing that scientists do not use mathematics nor that they shouldn't use mathematics nor even that it isn't extremely useful to do so. What I am arguing is that math is not science - period. Math and science are not the same things as your comment implies. Mathematics is not even a branch of science, and it most certainly is NOT "utter truth".
Clete