RexRed wrote:There are things about God I "KNOW"... I don't ever doubt them and I will take this KNOWLEDGE to my grave with me... Science can never ever cause this knowledge to falter, waver or weaken... But near the things that I know, are things that I wonder about... They can be subject to change...
The irony here is simply amazing. You claim to know things about God, although such things that you "know" are not demonstrable. And that is the critical divide be science and religious speculation. When a scientist speculates, she then proceeds to test. If the results of her tests are replicable, which is to say that others will obtain the same results with the same methods, and if her results are predictive, then she has the basis for a theory, for which expanded investigation is now possible, and upon which other speculations leading to other theories and discoveries can be based.
"Science" is not an entity bent on making you waver or falter in your religious superstitions. Science is indifferent to what you may or may not believe (such as the existence of a deity, something you believe rather than know, despite your protestations to the contrary.)
The problem with the things about which you wonder, the problem with your speculations, is that they are not tested, likely are not subject to testing--but worse they are, as Rosborne points out, babble. People here pointed out to you that light can be altered in its straight line course by the proximity of a sufficiently large mass. Your response was some nonsense out of nowhere about light not being able to pass through matter (never looked out of window, huh?). So you have offered other, equally ill-considered speculations, and made outright assertions from authority, although possessing no scientific authority, which plainly contradict the observations of reputable scientists. You offer not evidence, other than badly expressed and written descriptions of your musings.
Quote:Like the "law" of gravity.. there are things that scientists "know"... They have made a "law" out of a force they do not even know what it is... Scientists do not even know what gravity is... If they claim to know it has only been a result of the last few years... So for 200-300 years since Newton we have believed in a law pertaining to a force in nature that science cannot even define properly yet...
I do not fault science for their "faith" in gravity and I do not expect science to fault me for mine...
This is the direct product of your insistence on equating your superstition and its appurtenances with science and its methods. In another thread a joker showed up to post a scientific topic, once again the theory of evolution, and put it in the Religion and Spirituality forum. That is totally inappropriate, and it is revealing about the attitude of the author. First, that they likely fear they couldn't take the heat if they offered their mumbo jumbo in a Science Forum thread; second, that they equate their decision to believe that they "know" a deity exists, and that they "know" things about that deity with scientific theory. But theories don't deal with absolute truth, they deal with probability. As a theory ages, it looses the conviction of those who are familiar with it if it fails to predict, if tests of the theory are not replicable, if the theory contradicts other theories for which the tests are predictable and the terms predictive. As a theory ages, if its predictive ability improves, then it gains a greater measure of probability.
Which brings us to another flaw in the intellectual make-up of those who are willing to sacrifice honest investigation on the altar of their god. Such people are absolutists. Doubt is not commensurate with faithful devotion. To question any parts of a theology is to call into question all of the theology, and theology does not admit of revision, as does theory.
I agree with Rosborne, you've largely come here and babbled. That you are intelligent, and that you read i do not doubt. That you are willfully blind to evidence before you because it might contradict your theology i also do not doubt. You are bent upon belittling science because of the implicit threat to notions which entail burning bushes and walking on water.