313

Originally posted by RJHinds
You can believe in your religion of Atheism if you like, however, I think Christianity
is more believable to me. HalleluYah !!! 😏

so magic is more believable than science?

Originally posted by RJHinds
You are wrong on both counts. There are scientific laws dealing with both
gravity and electromagnetism. Laws have been proven.

http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction

Our understanding of Gravity and Electro-magnetism are both still theoretical.

Newton may have discovered a universal 'law' of gravitation but it is only an approximation and has been proved not to be completely accurate. It has not been proved, but dis-proved (despite being accurate enough for most purposes). Where greater accuracy is required, Einstein's theory of general relativity is better but still does not completely describe all situations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation.

Our explanations for electro-magnetism are similarly theoretical:

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-311-electromagnetic-theory-spring-2004/ - Electromagnetic Theory covers the basic principles of electromagnetism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetism - Electromagnetism is the branch of science concerned with the forces that occur between electrically charged particles. In electromagnetic theory these forces are explained using electromagnetic fields.

In general, laws and theories approach phenomena from different directions: laws describe things and theories attempt to explain them. I am sure the difference has been explained to you many times before but here it is again:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
Our understanding of Gravity and Electro-magnetism are both still theoretical.

Newton may have discovered a universal 'law' of gravitation but it is only an approximation and has been proved not to be completely accurate. It has not been proved, but dis-proved (despite being accurate enough for most purposes). Where greater accuracy is required, Einstein' ...[text shortened]... here it is again:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

--- Penguin

Oh I have explained it countless times and he still wont listen.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Religions do not have to be proven. Scientific facts have to be proven. That
is why evolution is called a theory because it has not been proven in science.

P.S. Atheism has not been proven either. HalleluYah !!! 😏

Scientific laws generally describe a phenomenon but do not attempt to explain it. Scientific theories attempt to explain a phenomenon and do not have to be proven. they only have to be disprovable and not yet disproved.

So now that you have been disillusioned (again!) about scientific theories and laws, I'll ask you again what your point is.

--- Penguin.

Originally posted by googlefudge
There can be but one truth (or set of truth) about the reality we live in.

Out of the infinite possible options for what that truth might be the only way of telling is
by testing ideas against reality to see which stand up to scrutiny and which don't.

No religion does this.

But science does.

Science is the only known way of objectively test ...[text shortened]... lity we live in and thus the only path to discovering the truth about the reality we live
in.

Reality (and thus Truth) to a sentient being is just its experienced reality (a sentient being can neither know its non-experienced reality, nor perceive its experienced reality objectively because the projections of its consciousness are both purely subjective and empty of inherent being).

This deeply subjective experienced reality triggers various products of ours (theories of reality) that are evaluated (by us using philosophic and scientific means) either as false or accurate within specific, relative contexts: If we both see the same car herenow, we merely agree that this is a validated event because, thanks to our collective subjectivity, we established a consensus that is grounded solely on the basis of the evaluation of our individual subjectivity as regards the existence and the properties of that real orthogonal epistemic object we agreed to name "same car".

Objectivity the way you pose it, is non existent😵

Hi Joe,

Back to the OP.

Is the basic premise here that just because there are X different versions of Reality (whether 313 or 10,000 is immaterial), they must of necessity all be wrong??

What if every representative of each of the 313 different versions prefaced his statement with: "As far as I know, and to the best of my experience, THIS is the way I believe the world works!", would it change your position as to their individual trustworthiness?

Here's another question: just because the Republicans and Democrats see the world in a totally different light, and because BOTH of them base their conclusions on observable facts (e.g. history, economics, sociology), is it a given that they MUST be BOTH wrong??

Remember the six blind men and the elephant...

Isn't it just a simple characteristic of human nature that, even given the identical facts, many people will interpret them totally differently?! And that you cannot draw any conclusion whatsoever of OBJECTIVE REALITY (whatever that may be) from their various different interpretations...

This is what makes life so interesting!

Originally posted by Penguin
Our understanding of Gravity and Electro-magnetism are both still theoretical.

Newton may have discovered a universal 'law' of gravitation but it is only an approximation and has been proved not to be completely accurate. It has not been proved, but dis-proved (despite being accurate enough for most purposes). Where greater accuracy is required, Einstein' ...[text shortened]... here it is again:
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

--- Penguin

I understand the difference between laws and theories.
Laws tell us what happens. (It is true).
Theories speculate on how and why it might happen. (It may be true or false).

For example: Laws tell us the heavens and Earth happened because they exist.
Laws tell us that humans happened because they exist. (That is true).

Theories speculate on how this all happened.
Special creation is the true theory.
Abiogenesis and evolution are the false theories.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the Lord! 😏

Originally posted by CalJust
Is the basic premise here that just because there are X different versions of Reality (whether 313 or 10,000 is immaterial), they must of necessity all be wrong??

Why would you think that? I am fairly sure the OP does not say that nor imply it. Why the strawman? Do you have no defence for what is actually contained in the OP?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I understand the difference between laws and theories.

You clearly do not, despite several people explaining it to you in detail.

Originally posted by twhitehead
You clearly do not, despite several people explaining it to you in detail.

Well, I just explained it to you in detail, Spanky!

Originally posted by black beetle
Reality (and thus Truth) to a sentient being is just its experienced reality (a sentient being can neither know its non-experienced reality, nor perceive its experienced reality objectively because the projections of its consciousness are both purely subjective and empty of inherent being).

This deeply subjective experienced reality triggers various ...[text shortened]... mic object we agreed to name "same car".

Objectivity the way you pose it, is non existent😵

"Objectivity the way you pose it, is non existent" ("You" being GF.)

Is there a way objectivity can be posed, by which way it is existent? Does this way render objectivity to be other than a word for the subject matter of intersubjective agreement? I ask non-rhetorically.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I just explained it to you in detail, Spanky!

You got it wrong. badly wrong.

Originally posted by JS357
"Objectivity the way you pose it, is non existent" ("You" being GF.)

Is there a way objectivity can be posed, by which way it is existent? Does this way render objectivity to be other than a word for the subject matter of intersubjective agreement? I ask non-rhetorically.

Black beetle wants to disappear in a big cloud of solipsism.

Which is one of the big issues with philosophy and philosophers.

Originally posted by JS357
"Objectivity the way you pose it, is non existent" ("You" being GF.)

Is there a way objectivity can be posed, by which way it is existent? Does this way render objectivity to be other than a word for the subject matter of intersubjective agreement? I ask non-rhetorically.

I mean that objectivity is not existent as if there were a reality out there that can be conceived the same way by all the sentient beings, as our googlefudge insists. I argue that what is meant with the term "objectivity" is merely the consensus of our collective subjectivity as regards either a specific falsifiable theory of reality that can be evaluated as accurate or false herenow according to specific scientific and philosophical procedures that must be followed during its evaluation, or the validation of an orthogonal event
😵

Originally posted by googlefudge
Black beetle wants to disappear in a big cloud of solipsism.

Which is one of the big issues with philosophy and philosophers.

I will surely not disappear in the cloud of the superstitious belief that objectivity is possible for the time being; and methinks that solipsism is not by my side but by yours, because your thesis is that the reality you perceive is separated from your own consciousness and that it exists as if it were identical to its mapping of yours, a mapping that you made up by means of using your perception and its projections. Well, whenever you feel up to it, kindly please feel free to prove here or at another thread that your thesis holds😵