When "Science" Is Wrong About Something....

Lutherf said:

Heh. It's like so many people that believe we are merely playthings of God. Is all that you create merely for your own gratification?

Click to expand...

Round II

I don't call what I write (for instance) an act of creation. The term seems to be loaded with theological (& other) implications.

Do I write simply for my own gratification? Sure, that's part of it. I like to think that I have something to say, which perhaps hasn't occurred to everybody, or that an audience might appreciate hearing it. But of course, I don't expect my notes to worship me.

Daisy said:

It simply shows man is not infallible...we don't know everything there is to know about God's creation...we will never stop learning...

Click to expand...

Did men write the Bible? Were they infallible?

southwest88 said:

IF the common Western Civ. definition of God is correct: Omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent, standing outside of time & space & indeed, the universe - which He/She created, then: What are the fundamental laws of God? If God has only to think something, & it springs into being - doesn't that mock the very notion of law?

I think that trying to apply human language &/or logic to God is a mistake - the categories' description (divine & profane) don't seem to overlap. We don't have the concepts nor the vocabulary we'd need to comprehend the content, & we certainly can't reasonably express something to far out of human experience.

Click to expand...

This is the idea of negative theology - we can't properly speak of what God is, but only of what He is not (finite, fallible, deficient, etc.).

Nonetheless, we can say something of God's relation to the world. E.g. that He has made the world in such a way that it usually follows certain physical laws, that He has endowed man with reason and free will, and that He rewards the just and punishes the wicked. We can also make certain analogies between God and the world - when one speaks of God as all-loving, all-good, or all-truthful, one is saying that the love, goodness, or truth we see in the world is an infinitesimal representation of some quality in God.

If one is to make an analogy between religion and science, one could say that divine revelation is to religion as experimental data is to science. Each is a rule to which speculative theory must conform. Where the analogy breaks down is that we have no control over revelation.

AmNat said:

He rewards the just and punishes the wicked.

Click to expand...

How do you know this?

And please don’t say “Because the Bible says so.”

How do you actually KNOW the wicked are punished?

Also, define “wicked”.

Are all Hindus “wicked”?
Are all atheists ”wicked”?

Lutherf said:

This is America, 2023 and we are the wisest, most knowledgeable people the world has ever known. To that end, what is "good" or "bad" is dependent entirely on the collective conscious at any given time, as interpreted by the prevailing political system. If, for example, the collective conscious has decided that X is good, and political powers agree, then X is good. If, a week later, the collective conscious decides that X is bad and the political powers agree then X is bad. Furthermore, if the collective conscious agrees that X is good and the political powers disagree then the political system has, without question, been taken over by Fascists.

Click to expand...

Is this a victimhood fetish?

AmNat said:

Nonetheless, we can say something of God's relation to the world. E.g. that He has made the world in such a way that it usually follows certain physical laws, that He has endowed man with reason and free will, and that He rewards the just and punishes the wicked.

Click to expand...

Say. Make up

tosca1 said:

ONLY IF they voluntarily admit to being wrong

Click to expand...

What does that even mean?

VanceMack said:

Perhaps then what we should learn is that science should be treated as faith. That which we know we can cite as knowledge. That which we believe based on current understandings can likewise be cited as what we may currently think or believe..but not as something that is gospel.

The COVID experience gives countless examples of that very thing.

Click to expand...

What a pile of nonsense. You gt fooled by talking heads. Scientists didn't jump to conclusions. They said "we only know what we know, so _____ would be the safest practice at this time, based on the limited info we have". Other people mangled that simple concept and fooled you.

Dragonfly said:

What does that even mean?

Click to expand...

You don't get?

You never heard of hoaxes?
How do we find out about hoaxes?
Usually from other scientists who point it out!



Anyone can make mistakes.

But, here's the thing:
Lol - if you don't voluntarily admit to having gotten something wrong - and it takes for a whistle blower to expose it - wouldn't your credibility take a hit?

That's not just exclusive to science, though.