Why does science keep changing?

[RevBinary]

First HI LAURA and family! waving goofey like....

OK...

Up until this point I agree with you: Science is not the truth, merely as much of it as humanity currently understands. As more evidence comes to light, we change science to fit and thus bring it closer to the truth. However, you added this:God is the only truth in the universe. "Actually, the universe is the only truth in the universe. As science advances, it becomes closer and closer to being an accurate description of reality. Thus An Accurate Description of Reality = Truth.

I won't take you to task, and will with caution agree with you that given enough time science does blunder onto the truth. Maybe. I think if we could ask God (in a more direct method than prayer) if science was a good thing, he would say I gave you a mind to use for discovery, and science is a extension of that mind. Is what science describes as reality now in actuality the truth of how reality really is? Personally I highly doubt it! But we won't know until all the i's are dotted and the t's crossed for sure. There is far and away too much discrepancy and unanswered questions for me to think we are even close to the truth, scientifically speaking. I feel we are much closer to the religious truth than the scientific truth!

Science becomes dangerous when it becomes aggressively secular and when it attempts to be the final authority of everything. The church which I am wary of as well becomes toxic when it instills fear or hinders scientific exploration and discovery setting itself up as judge jury and executioner.

; {>

[RevBinary]

"In science, 'truth' can only mean 'confirmed to such an extent that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent'."
- Stephen J Gould

Yes, well that statement is nearly a illusion of grandeur but has some elements of truth in it. For it was after Newton and other great minds that prompted (I can't remember the scientist or board that said this) early in this century to say that we have to only dot the i's and cross the t's to complete all of science. (well not in those words but you get the point?)

Later that month or year In 1905, Einstein published five separate papers in a journal, the Annals of Physics.

; }>

[politas]

That really opens a can of cosmic worms eh? I am still a fence sitter on this one. I think God is 'perfect' in his realm which can not be transferred to this universe, because normal 'atom' based matter is 'defective' or time dependent which means it must obey the 'laws' of nature, i.e. the 2nd law and even the nuances of quantum (and I feel macro) uncertainty.

If God and his realm cannot be "transferred to this universe", then logically, there is no way for any human to ever have received divine inspiration.

Still all is not lost! We know that all know laws of physics break down at the singularity of a black hole.

I don't believe quantum physics are affected by singularities, actually. It's just all the our formulas for macro level physics that break down in a singularity (mostly because you can't divide by zero).

However, this does not bar us from studying the very definition of the unknown and to apply that knowledge gleaned by the study of the ‘unknowable’ to our current stockpile of knowledge.

That sentence is literally nonsense. There is no knowledge to be gained from the unknowable, by the very definitions of the words.

[Arthwollipot]

Science becomes dangerous when it becomes aggressively secular and when it attempts to be the final authority of everything. The church which I am wary of as well becomes toxic when it instills fear or hinders scientific exploration and discovery setting itself up as judge jury and executioner.

Whew! We're safe from science then. Because the only people who ever claim that science actually does this are the believers who see science as undermining their beliefs.

[Arthwollipot]

Yes, well that statement is nearly a illusion of grandeur but has some elements of truth in it. For it was after Newton and other great minds that prompted (I can't remember the scientist or board that said this) early in this century to say that we have to only dot the i's and cross the t's to complete all of science. (well not in those words but you get the point?)

Later that month or year In 1905, Einstein published five separate papers in a journal, the Annals of Physics.

; }>

So some people a hundred years ago were wrong. What's so unusual about that? The director of IBM once said that there was a global market for about five computers. Sure, it's epic fail, but that says absolutely nothing about the actual science.

[corynski]

Rev, I see you're still spinning webs of fantasy and calling it reality.

REV wrote:
God is the only truth in the universe


Actually, the universe is the only truth in the universe. As science advances, it becomes closer and closer to being an accurate description of reality. Thus An Accurate Description of Reality = Truth.

I love it. First, God is the only truth in the universe, then, actually, the universe is the only truth in the universe, and finally, An Accurate Description of Reality = truth, which brings us full circle to: God is the only truth in the universe, etc., etc......

Face it Rev, you're god-drunk, where everything and everywhere and everywhatever IS god, period. And by making an abstract word 'god' mean everything, you completely confuse reality and unreality - you obliterate any distinctions between what is and what might be, or what could be, because God is, and is within everything, all matter, etc., etc.

My guess is that you will continue to see a god or a devil everywhere until you find a method to distinquish between reality and nonreality. Have you even considered the possibility that the abstract concept 'god' is a reification?

[Arthwollipot]

My guess is that you will continue to see a god or a devil everywhere until you find a method to distinquish between reality and nonreality.

Fortunately, one of those already exists.