Foundations for science, God or no God?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Tart
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1663
Joined: Wed Dec 20, 2017 8:55 pm
Been thanked: 1 time

Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #1

Post by Tart »

There seems to be a big debate on whether or not science is directed by God, or not... Certainly there are many aspects of debate on this subject, like the cosmological argument and the origins of the universe, a fine tuned universe to accommodate intelligent life, intelligent design, the foundation on natural law, etc... And some of these arguments make good points, but for the subject of this topic id like to concentrate on a specific aspect of this debate. Id like to discuss induction, and the scientific method, it's foundations and whether or not it is justified to believe in science... It is summed up by the "problem of induction"...

A lot of non-believers point to science as a foundation for their truths that they believe, yet those foundations might be established by God. For example, Aristotle who first used the word "Physics" in his book "The Physics" (Greek: Φυσικὴ ἀκ�όασις Phusike akroasis) stated in that book "that there must be an immortal, unchanging being, ultimately responsible for all wholeness and orderliness in the sensible world" ~Aristotle...

Newton observed similar thoughts saying "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe." -Sir Issac Newton.

Einstein talked on Physical laws, implying them to be created by God. "We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws... We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books.... That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God."~Einstein

It looks like a lot of scientific thinkers not only believe in God, but imply that God is necessary for science, and a foundation.

Or logical reasoning, for example, also seems to have foundations that rest on God. For example, our word for "Logic" comes from the root Greek word "Logos"... "Logos is logical appeal, and the term logic is derived from it."~Wikipedia… Well Logos is a term that has been identified as resting on God... "Logos (noun) the Word of God, or principle of divine reason and creative order..."... That the foundation of reasoning and logic rest on an absolute truth, a foundation on God, as revaluation from God.. I think that is how the Greeks understood it...

So it seems to be that foundations for science, logic, reasoning, and knowledge, rest on God (and im not even going to get into the law, morality, righteousness, freewill, ect, which also seem to be rested on the necessity of God)…

But maybe a nonbeliever would throw away all these foundational elements of science and logic and reasoning, and say they are unnecessary for science and knowledge to be true, and logic and reasoning to make sense..

However, we can continue to explore the foundations for these things.. Because in order for the scientific method, through observation and empirical evidence, to make sense, we are dependent on our reasoning. It is dependent on what philosophers call "inductive reasoning"... That is to say that our past experiences can predict future events, the scientific method is dependent on induction...

Well even here we come to problems on these foundations for science... For example, David Hume (a ashiest philosopher) observed a problem with inductive reasoning, and made good points. How can we rely on this kind of reasoning for our source of truth?
We generally think that the observations we make are able to justify some expectations or predictions about observations we have not yet made, as well as general claims that go beyond the observed. For example, the observation that bread of a certain appearance has thus far been nourishing seems to justify the expectation that the next similar piece of bread I eat will also be nourishing, as well as the claim that bread of this sort is generally nourishing. Such inferences from the observed to the unobserved, or to general laws, are known as “inductive inferences�.

Hume asks on what grounds we come to our beliefs about the unobserved on the basis of inductive inferences. He presents an argument in the form of a dilemma which appears to rule out the possibility of any reasoning from the premises to the conclusion of an inductive inference. There are, he says, two possible types of arguments, “demonstrative� and “probable�, but neither will serve. A demonstrative argument produces the wrong kind of conclusion, and a probable argument would be circular... for Hume, the problem remains of how to explain why we form any conclusions that go beyond the past instances of which we have had experience (T. 1.3.6.10). Hume stresses that he is not disputing that we do draw such inferences. The challenge, as he sees it, is to understand the “foundation� of the inference—the “logic� or “process of argument� that it is based upon (E. 4.2.21). The problem of meeting this challenge, while evading Hume’s argument against the possibility of doing so, has become known as “the problem of induction�.

Hume’s argument is one of the most famous in philosophy. A number of philosophers have attempted solutions to the problem, but a significant number have embraced his conclusion that it is insoluble. There is also a wide spectrum of opinion on the significance of the problem. Some have argued that Hume’s argument does not establish any far-reaching skeptical conclusion, either because it was never intended to, or because the argument is in some way misformulated. Yet many have regarded it as one of the most profound philosophical challenges imaginable since it seems to call into question the justification of one of the most fundamental ways in which we form knowledge. Bertrand Russell, for example, expressed the view that if Hume’s problem cannot be solved, “there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity� (Russell 1946: 699).
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
(Note both these philosophers are atheist, Hume and Russell)

So how can we rely on science, if its foundations are still unjustified? It is like saying "logic justifies logic". What if that logic has no coherent foundations to make sense?

However, from a foundation of God, many presuppositional apologists will argue, that induction is justified, and therefor science is justified and so is knowledge and reasoning..

Instead of resting our truth and knowledge on induction which is unjustified, we can rest on God who "is the central reference point and foundation for all questions regarding truth and knowledge".. That when we rely on God for foundations "the principle of induction can be assumed" and that "God is a precondition necessary to make sense of induction".~Jeff Durbin's

It certainly seems like God is a foundation for truth and knowledge, not just historically but also in our present philosophy for truth and knowledge, who justifies induction and science... If not God, then how can we make sense of these things? What do you think is a foundation for truth and knowledge?
Last edited by Tart on Wed Jun 19, 2019 2:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 14895
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 956 times
Been thanked: 1751 times
Contact:

Post #11

Post by William »

Tart: The question is where are our foundations for truth and knowledge... the Christian claim is that the foundations for truth and knowledge go back to God. And referencing the original post, we can assume induction when God is our foundation.. We can establish a foundation for logical reasoning...

William: Theists in general would and do argue the same for their particular perspective ideas of GOD.
It becomes problematic when any organised religion makes claims about their idea of GOD being "the foundation for truth and knowledge" if the idea of GOD in question doesn't align with the Creation we are all experiencing.


Tart: And let me give an example, because William says "where is the need for acknowledging any GOD?"

And i think the need is to give a coherent foundation of truth.

If someone says, that which is right and wrong can be established as resting on God, and another makes a counter claim saying "I know right from wrong and i dont believe in God", that doesn't establish a foundation for knowledge of right and wrong.... It just makes a baseless claim that right and wrong can be known without God...


William: Right from wrong are human concepts developed though human experience. They are non-existent in the actual makeup of the universe itself.
As such, one can claim either way but this does not mean that either way is the correct interpretation.
The idea of placing an type of GOD behind the laws humans have created to combat their ideas of Good verses Evil are for the purpose of establishing the idea that Laws are not sourced within human ideologies but sanctioned by whatever particular idea of GOD that Lawmakers want people to believe in.
GOD is not judging humankind. Humankind is judging humankind.


Tart: Likewise, someone can point to science as where truth permeates from, but if someone wants to point to science as a foundation of truth, it seems to be, philosophically, that that claim is in question. If induction cant be proven, then the claim that science is the base for our knowledge, is incoherent. For example, people can make logical claims, that lead to logical fallacies.. People can make scientific claims that lead to unscientific assumptions... Maybe this is why "Bertrand Russell, for example, expressed the view that if Hume’s problem cannot be solved, “there is no intellectual difference between sanity and insanity�"... Like where logic and logical fallacy become the same.

William: I think that if one is to argue using examples, one should provide examples, rather than merely mention that examples exist. It helps the reader better establish what the writer is trying to convey.

Tart: How can science be justified as true, if there isnt a coherent foundation for its claim?

William: What is science claiming is true? Science is a process.
If you mean scientists interpretation of the science, then yes, but science merely shows scientists how to proceed. GOD is not necessary to acknowledge because science deals with the physical and GOD is metaphysical.
Morality is also not something which science can verify as true. Science can only acknowledge that with humans, morality is an issue. But generally such is left for philosophy to explore, due to the shifting nature of human ideas of morality.


Tart: As hume pointed out, observation and empirical evidence does not establish the fact that induction can be assumed. It is dependent on induction and not the other way around.

William: How is inducing anything a sign GOD exists, other then theists say so?
If something is "dependent on induction" then why can't induction be assumed?

I don't really get what it is Hume is 'pointing out'...


Tart: Newton observed similar thoughts saying "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe." -Sir Issac Newton.

Einstein talked on Physical laws, implying them to be created by God. "We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws... We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books.... That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God."~Einstein

It looks like a lot of scientific thinkers not only believe in God, but imply that God is necessary for science, and a foundation.


William: If you dig deeper into the known lives of these scientist, you will most likely discover that when they mentioned GOD, they were not referring to Christendom's idea of GOD...because it doesn't fit with what they were observing...in relation to a Creator GOD.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Post #12

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 9 by Tart]
It just makes a baseless claim that right and wrong can be known without God...
Baseless? How do you explain the generally good moral behavior of cows, or sheep, or goats, or any social animal? Assuming you'd accept that these animals don't reference any god, why aren't they constantly fighting, killing their young or their physically weaker females, etc.?

Morality does not come from religion or any god ... it is inherent in all social animals or else they would not survive. Direct evidence of this is simple observation of the behavior of social animals of all types, who know nothing about any god yet display what we as humans would call good morals. This is sufficient proof that at a basic level of understanding, knowledge of right and wrong can indeed be known without gods of any type.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #13

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 10 by John Human]
Furthermore, in the opening post, Tart referred to Aristotle, Newton and Einstein, all of whom you simply ignore.


This is a really common thing among theists and anti-science people ... ie. bring up some quote from a long dead famous scientist as if that has any relevance at all to the discussion. Why shouldn't opinions from Aristotle, Newton or Einstein be ignored when they are commenting on religion or alchemy (Newton) or anything besides their areas of demonstrated expertise and accomplishment?

It is irrelevant what Newton's opinion was on religion or what he may have said about it. Newtons accomplishments in physics, mathematics, optics, etc. are what should be quoted. And they are of course, and have been shown to be groundbreaking in many cases, and correct by others reproducing measurements, observations, etc. But it never fails that someone will bring up some long dead, but famous and accomplished, scientist and their opinion on a subject outside of their area of expertise such as religion, then expect that to be relevant or support the point they are making.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #14

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 10 by John Human]
Furthermore, in the opening post, Tart referred to Aristotle, Newton and Einstein, all of whom you simply ignore.


This is a really common thing among theists and anti-science people ... ie. bring up some quote from a long dead famous scientist as if that has any relevance at all to the discussion. Why shouldn't opinions from Aristotle, Newton or Einstein be ignored when they are commenting on religion or alchemy (Newton) or anything besides their areas of demonstrated expertise and accomplishment?


:-s :blink: ](*,)

Your opinion would seem to be yet another sophistic obfuscation, unless you really did fail to understand the relevant quotes from Newton and Einstein. To copy from this thread's opening post:
Newton observed similar thoughts saying "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe." -Sir Issac Newton.

Einstein talked on Physical laws, implying them to be created by God. "We see a universe marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws... We are in the position of a little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written those books.... That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind, even the greatest and most cultured, toward God."~Einstein


Both Newton and Einstein, in these quotes, are not commenting on religion or theology, but are drawing an inference from the observed order of the universe, an order that their life work did much to make evident to the rest of us.
DrNoGods wrote:It is irrelevant what Newton's opinion was on religion or what he may have said about it. Newtons accomplishments in physics, mathematics, optics, etc. are what should be quoted.


Once again, it wasn't an opinion about religion, it was an inference from the observed order of the universe. And your comment about what "should" be quoted is just plain arrogant, and out of place on this forum.
DrNoGods wrote:But it never fails that someone will bring up some long dead, but famous and accomplished, scientist and their opinion on a subject outside of their area of expertise such as religion, then expect that to be relevant or support the point they are making.
:yapyap: :lalala:

Once again, it isn't an opinion about religion, but rather an inference about the observed order of the universe.

To paraphrase Newton and Einstein: The perceived majestic order of the universe implies a creative force that brought about the order that we are able to perceive.
_________________
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #15

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 14 by John Human]
Both Newton and Einstein, in these quotes, are not commenting on religion or theology...


Really? So comments about creators and gods have nothing to do with religion? This is news to me. Tell me what branch of science concerns itself with creators and gods, or what religions don't consider them relevant? Or are you (again) just trying to make something from nothing.
Once again, it wasn't an opinion about religion, it was an inference from the observed order of the universe.


And once again ... tell me what branch of science deals with creators and gods. It is clear from Newton's quoted comment that he was referring to a creator/god entity, and suggesting that this entity controls the universe. This is obviously an opinion about religion. Einstein's quote also clearly references God with a capital G (but he is referring to the attitude of the human mind towards God, not claiming that one exists), and gods are religious entities.
And your comment about what "should" be quoted is just plain arrogant, and out of place on this forum.


I didn't' realize you were now a moderator. Did you miss my point so completely that it came across as arrogant? Let me try again in fewer words. Opinions of historical scientists concerning religious topics are not relevant to science no matter how famous or accomplished they were. So quoting comments by Newton or Einstein about their view of creators, or their opinions of the attitude of humans toward gods, is not relevant to science or its foundations or validity. The OP presented those quotes, then added this:
It looks like a lot of scientific thinkers not only believe in God, but imply that God is necessary for science, and a foundation.


Did you miss this part in your anxiousness to attack me personally? This quote from the OP, following quotes by Aristotle, Newton and Einstein, shows that the quotes were provided to support the idea that God is necessary for science, and even a foundation for it. My post was to counter that idea and argue that the opinions of these famous scientists on gods or creators, despite their amazing accomplishments in science, do not lend support to the idea that God/gods have anything whatsoever to do with science or its foundation.
To paraphrase Newton and Einstein: The perceived majestic order of the universe implies a creative force that brought about the order that we are able to perceive.


Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not that creative force exists.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #16

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 14 by John Human]
To paraphrase Newton and Einstein: The perceived majestic order of the universe implies a creative force that brought about the order that we are able to perceive.


Which is completely irrelevant to whether or not that creative force exists.
Perhaps we should double-check whether we're on the same page about the meaning of the word "imply" (and/or relevant).

If A implies B, then A is clearly relevant to B.

Do you disagree?

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #17

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 16 by John Human]
If A implies B, then A is clearly relevant to B.

Do you disagree?


If:

A = famous dead (or alive) scientist with an opinion or comment on whether or not gods or creators exist ...

and

B = the factual existence of gods or creators ...

then I disagree. The opinions or comments by famous scientists on the existence (or not) of gods or creators is not the least bit relevant to whether they actually do exist (or not), which was my point in post 13.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #18

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote: [Replying to post 14 by John Human]
Both Newton and Einstein, in these quotes, are not commenting on religion or theology...


Really? So comments about creators and gods have nothing to do with religion? This is news to me.
Well gee, wake up and smell the coffee ☕ ☕ Newton inferred a creator from the observed order of the universe. That is a logical supposition, and it is indeed a standard philosophical "proof" of the existence of a creator, without getting involved with religious doctrine. The idea of "intelligent design" (inferring a creator from order observed in the universe around us) is as old as Plato, who didn't bring any theological baggage to the discussion.
Tell me what branch of science concerns itself with creators
That would actually be logic, part of the underpinning of science.
Once again, it wasn't an opinion about religion, it was an inference from the observed order of the universe.

It is clear from Newton's quoted comment that he was referring to a creator/god entity, and suggesting that this entity controls the universe. This is obviously an opinion about religion.

I respectfully disagree, and I am surprised that anyone would say such a thing. And your verb "controls" is problematic -- perhaps "maintains" or sustains" is closer to Newton's view.
Einstein's quote also clearly references God with a capital G (but he is referring to the attitude of the human mind towards God, not claiming that one exists), and gods are religious entities.
Okay, in your opinion gods are religious entities. I don't suppose you mean that gods go to church every Sunday.
And your comment about what "should" be quoted is just plain arrogant, and out of place on this forum.

Did you miss my point so completely that it came across as arrogant?
No, it is your general demeanor and habitual communication style that come across as arrogant.
Opinions of historical scientists concerning religious topics are not relevant to science no matter how famous or accomplished they were. So quoting comments by Newton or Einstein about their view of creators, or their opinions of the attitude of humans toward gods, is not relevant to science or its foundations or validity. The OP presented those quotes, then added this:
It looks like a lot of scientific thinkers not only believe in God, but imply that God is necessary for science, and a foundation.


This quote from the OP, following quotes by Aristotle, Newton and Einstein, shows that the quotes were provided to support the idea that God is necessary for science, and even a foundation for it.
Yes indeed, as a logical inference, devoid of theological supposition.
My post was to counter that idea and argue that the opinions of these famous scientists on gods or creators, despite their amazing accomplishments in science, do not lend support to the idea that God/gods have anything whatsoever to do with science or its foundation.
You are of course entitled to your opinion. If you choose to engage with the logic of inferring a creator from the observed order in the universe (whether you agree or disagree), then you will approach the possibility of saying something relevant to the point of the opening post.
_________________
"Love is a force in the universe." -- Interstellar

"God don't let me lose my nerve" -- "Put Your Lights On"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCBS5EtszYI

"Who shall save the human race?"
-- "Wild Goose Chase" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5L45toPpEv0

"A piece is gonna fall on you..."
-- "All You Zombies" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63O_cAclG3A[/i]

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2719
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1645 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #19

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to post 18 by John Human]
Newton inferred a creator from the observed order of the universe. That is a logical supposition, and it is indeed a standard philosophical "proof" of the existence of a creator, without getting involved with religious doctrine.


Inferred a creator? Philosophical "proof"? These are both utterly irrelevant as to whether or not a "creator" exists in fact. There has never been any proof or practical demonstration of the existence of such a being. They exist (so far) only in religious circles and philosophical ponderings, etc.
And your verb "controls" is problematic -- perhaps "maintains" or sustains" is closer to Newton's view.


What? The quote in the OP, which you reproduced in post 14, is this:
Newton observed similar thoughts saying "Don't doubt the creator, because it is inconceivable that accidents alone could be the controller of this universe." -Sir Issac Newton.


Perhaps you could ask your Ancient Demon alter ego buddy to text Newton or telepathically communicate with his long dead existence and ask HIM why he used the word "controller." Or are you now speaking for Newton and explaining what he really meant?
Okay, in your opinion gods are religious entities.


In my opinion? What is more of a "religious entity" than a god? What are gods in your opinion?
No, it is your general demeanor and habitual communication style that come across as arrogant.


Is that ever the pot calling the kettle black! But after you've spoken for Newton himself and explaining what he really meant with his comment I'm sure I could not compete for the arrogant trophy.
Yes indeed, as a logical inference, devoid of theological supposition.


And I maintain that their opinions on religion, or their inferences related to the existence of a creator/god have no bearing whatsoever on whether or not such an entity actually exists. The countless debates on the ontological argument for the existence of god/gods are no different. Until one of these beings or entities makes itself known in some way that is scientifically verifiable there is no more reason to believe they exist than there is for bigfoot, leprechauns, fairies or the Loch Ness monster.
If you choose to engage with the logic of inferring a creator from the observed order in the universe (whether you agree or disagree), then you will approach the possibility of saying something relevant to the point of the opening post.


Inferring a creator from the observed order in the universe amounts to a hypothesis, arrived at by the obsevation of order. Proving that hypothesis to be correct over other hypotheses (such as the current descriptions of modern physics which require no such creator), can only be done through the scientific method, which Newton and others appreciated and practiced. That process has yet to confirm the existence of gods or "creators" of any kind, regardless of any famous scientist's personal opinions or inferences on the subject.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

John Human
Scholar
Posts: 354
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2019 5:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 6 times

Re: Foundations for science, God or no God?

Post #20

Post by John Human »

DrNoGods wrote:
Inferring a creator from the observed order in the universe amounts to a hypothesis, arrived at by the obsevation of order. Proving that hypothesis to be correct over other hypotheses (such as the current descriptions of modern physics which require no such creator), can only be done through the scientific method, which Newton and others appreciated and practiced. That process has yet to confirm the existence of gods or "creators" of any kind, regardless of any famous scientist's personal opinions or inferences on the subject.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. The "current descriptions of modern physics" simply don't address the question of the creative or causal force that got things started. Relying exclusively on the scientific method as a source of knowledge, to the exclusion of logical inferences, is putting on blinders that Newton and Einstein declined to put on. Your posts convey the attitude, whether intended or not, that the rest of us should ignore Newton and Einstein's approach and follow YOU.

Post Reply