I would like to start a forum reference to the difference between fact and belief. I have heard several arguments wherein a fact is subject to interpretation. Would anyone care to elaborate? I think this is key when discussing deities as the origin of life.
My contention is that facts are facts, these are facts that we apply to our observations as constants. Such as in Newtonian physics, it is a fact that if a person drops a ball one million times, it will hit the floor a million times. Without variables of course. This is a fact. How could this be subject to interpretation rendering this a belief, or opinion? I contend it is not, but I would love to hear any insight as to this subject.
N + 1? What are the odds?
Something interrupting the test doesn't prove or disprove anything related to the test.
For example, we can agree that the ball will always hit the floor when you drop it. You say this demonstrates the theory of gravity, but I say it demonstrates the nature of god as infinite, eternal, and unchanging.
Since there is no evidence that such an entity exists, no such demonstration is possible. QED.
Which entity, god or gravity?
You don't think there's evidence of gravity? Knock something off your desk! Then, pray for God to put it back up on the desk. Hold your breath.
If I knock something off my desk, I can observe it accelerate toward the floor.
That is an observation.
That is not a theory of gravitation.
The way you are using "gravity" is as a magical word, like the way you feel theists use "god". Gravity isn't a real thing, gravity is a human concept made up in an effort to explain observations and potentially predict future observations.
Those observations of objects falling off of desks, by the way, can't be evidence of gravity because they were used to develop the model in the first place.
"Those observations of objects falling off of desks, by the way, can't be evidence of gravity because they were used to develop the model in the first place. "
Thanks for the chuckle. :)
That's the way we develop models, @Gregg. All models in science are developed and tested so as to conform to existing observations.
It's only when we test the predictions of the model on new data that we actually have evidence for the validity of the model. That's why we go searching for the Higgs boson, or why Einstein's gravitational theory was not accepted until after the eclipse expedition. Objects falling off of desks was not sufficient.
@ Brother Bob:
Have you ever heard of the word hodgepodge?
For some reason when I read your last post that word popped into my head.
"...Einstein's gravitational theory was not accepted until after the eclipse expedition."
This one had me scratching my head.
If memory serves it was Newton not Einstein who came up with the theory of gravity.
Einstein's theory of General Reletivity explained gravity as "space-time curvature," something which had not been known before. Before Einstein, we didn't know black holes could exist, because we didn't know how gravity would effect light.
Einstein predicted that light would bend when it passes near a very massive object, like the sun. Later, people observed starlight bending around the sun during an eclipse (when they were actually able to see the starlight), as he predicted.
SourceWikipedia: A source is the start, beginning, or origin of something. →