How do Christians Expect to Convert Atheists?

[ken]

While there is no incompatibility in actuality between them there is however with the theories namely General Relatively
and Quantum Mechanics. And one of them is therefore flawed [ probably the former ] but till a theory of Quantum Gravity
is discovered it is the best approximation of observable reality that there is

The word theory gives away the clue about some thing there could be flawed. Both of them are theories. Theories are just human
made speculations about what is the truth but only what is IS the actual truth. If only what is is looked at and seen then the truth
is already known and understood. And as I always ask Why assume some thing BEFORE the truth is actually known already

A theory in science is more than mere speculation.

Is it?

It is a framework for a specific phenomenon that incorporates facts and hypotheses and laws
and is the highest classification possible. Nothing is above it.

I thought what is true would be above a theory.

A specific phenomenon that incorporates facts and 'hypotheses', which are suppositions or proposed explanations made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation, and laws, which some of are obviously in complete contradiction of each other because this is what that subject is about now. So, I would suggest there could easily be things above a "theory" in science.

So the scientific definition is therefore the complete opposite of the lay definition

A 'theory' defined scientifically or in another way is not that much different really. But then again Every thing is relative to the observer. I just find it amusing now that you say that some theories are incomplete and inaccurate but now are trying to say that in science nothing is above a theory. I thought science was about looking for and finding what is true, and not about making up or speculating the truth, with theories, which could or could not be true and accurate.

[ken]

The word "theory" gives away the clue about some thing there could be flawed. Both of them are theories. "Theories" are just human made speculations about what is the truth, but only what is IS the actual truth. If only what is is looked at and seen, then the truth is already known and understood. And, as I always ask, Why assume some thing BEFORE the truth is actually known already?

And you are using the word "theory" as an ignorant layman would use it when a scientific theory is a well supported idea that is supported by facts and is therefore better than facts. A scientific theory is just about the most proven form of knowledge there is and a great deal better than speculation, you need to stop using theory in such an ignorant manner.

So why are you the one proposing that the theory of quantum mechanics and the theory of general relativity are incompatible and can NOT be unified? One or both of these theories can NOT be the most proven form of knowledge there is and a great deal better than speculation. Unless of course they are both absolutely correct AND can be unified. We will just have to wait and see what happens from now on.

Just how much of an ignorant layman or not I am is being shown, and will be seen. I have already admitted to being the most uneducated, simple and slow one. One reason I ask so many clarifying questions is so that you educated ones can teach Me what you actually do know. This knowledge is being shown here by "all" the answers I get to My questions.

[ken]

What I have done is question those people who use the word Universe and who also
speak of other universes at the same time as to how do they actually define Universe

Universe is all there is while universe is the observable part of that but if this is too confusing then Universe can be substituted
for Multiverse. Though it does not actually matter what an actual word is long as its meaning is clearly understood by everyone

The whole point I was pointing out, and which some are just starting to see, is the actually meaning is NOT clearly understood by everyone.

If you are saying here that Universe, with the capital U is all there is while universe, with the little u, is the observable part, then that is great. I have finally found a human being who has defined it. But, if the observable part of the Universe is one universe, which began at the big bang and goes for, no human being knows, then there can NOT BE other Universes. There can be a situation of multi universes but there is only one Universe. If that is clearly understood by everyone, then we can proceed. The only thing we have to deal with now is what happens when we start a new sentence with the word Universe but we actually meant universe?

Also, further to this, how will human beings know if this universe is NOT the actual Universe? If human beings can only see a certain distance, thus can only see the observable part of this universe or the Universe, then they do not actually know how big this universe actually is. I think finding another word for this alleged "universe" or for the Universe, Itself, would make things much clearer for everyone.

By the way the only thing that I find confusing is how human beings try to describe things.

[Dontaskme]

I'm not saying that, I'm imagining what some others might say about it. There are some on this forum who claim that a consciousness must perceive the vibrations for them to be sound, I do not agree with that. I say that vibrations in the air are sound whether someone hears them or not.

Hi Doc, how's it going?

You say..''I say that vibrations in the air are sound whether someone hears them or not.''

My response is...

Sound is an experience known.

Awareness had to be present for the sound experience to have ever happened and become known in the first place. So sound's existence is known via the memory and it is also known that sound does not need the ear present to know of it's existence?...but because the knowledge of sounds existence is just some information stored in the memory which can only be drawn upon when there is an awareness of that memory present?

Does this not conclude that there must be an awareness that is always present that knows what is sound?

.What do you say to that idea?

[ken]

sadly when they say other universes exist they are diminishing what the Universe once meant and which
makes more sense and more sadly is that they are only confusing themselves more and more by doing this

The possible existence of other universes would increase rather than diminish the Universe

I did NOT say the Universe diminishes. I said what the Universe once meant diminishes.

The Universe, Itself, can not increase or diminish. The Universe IS ALL-THAT-IS, no matter what human beings perceive or do not perceive.

Can you see any problem existing by saying things like, other universes increases the Universe?

because
it would then be more complex than was previously assumed.

But the Universe, Itself, is NOT complex at all. Why do human beings assume It is complex. And, how could It be more complex if It is larger than previously assumed. In fact, I found that if the Universe is infinite, thus as large as could be, then that makes It far more easier and simpler to understand.

But what did the Universe once mean

ALL-THAT-IS.

[ken]

Theories are just human made speculations about what is the truth

Gravity is a theory
Evolution is a theory
Special Relativity is a theory
Electromagnetism is a theory
General Relativity is a theory
Quantum Mechanics is a theory

They are more than just speculations

Would,

A theory of gravity is a theory.
A theory of evolution is a theory.
A theory of special relativity is a theory.
A theory of electromagnetism is a theory.
A theory of general relativity is a theory.
A theory of quantum mechanics is a theory.

be more correct?

Because,

The label/name 'gravity' is given to what is generally known as gravity. Gravity, itself, is not a theory.
The label/name 'evolution' is given to what is generally known as evolution. Evolution, itself, is not a theory.
The label/name 'special relativity' is given to what is generally known as special relativity. Special relativity, itself, is not a theory.
The label/name 'electromagnetism' is given to what is generally known as electromagnetism. Electromagnetism, itself, is not a theory.
The label/name 'general relativity' is given to what is generally known as general relativity. General relativity, itself, is not a theory.
The label/name 'quantum mechanics' is given to what is generally known as quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics, itself, is not a theory.

Human beings make up theories about things that they are not sure of yet.

[thedoc]

Is earth a living organism?

If so, is earth made up of rocks?

The Earth in total is a living thing that is made up of living and non-living material. Rock is a non-living material.

[thedoc]

Human beings make up theories about things that they are not sure of yet.

Science never claims to be 100% sure of anything, but the theories you mention are based on the best evidence that is known so far. If new data is discovered the theory will be refined or changed to suit.

[thedoc]

Does this not conclude that there must be an awareness that is always present that knows what is sound?

.What do you say to that idea?

I would say that we disagree on the meaning of sound and let it go at that.

[thedoc]

Just how much of an ignorant layman or not I am is being shown, and will be seen. I have already admitted to being the most uneducated, simple and slow one. One reason I ask so many clarifying questions is so that you educated ones can teach Me what you actually do know. This knowledge is being shown here by "all" the answers I get to My questions.

The term "theory" does not mean the same thing in layman's and scientific uses. To the layman a theory is an unproven idea or hunch, definitely a speculation on a subject. In science a theory is an idea that explains most or all that is known about a subject, thus a scientific theory is better than facts and much more than a speculation or hunch. Too many times in the past I have heard a layman use the phrase "It's only a theory" to discredit a scientific theory that they didn't like, evolution seems to be one of the favorites. Scientific theories are the best explanation of a body of knowledge to date and will be altered or changed if new data comes available. Scientific theories are the ideas that are accepted by the majority of those studying the body of knowledge in question, and the thoughts of those outside the field of study have little or no bearing on the validity of the theory.

For myself, I do not own a large telescope or a any particle accelerator to study these subjects so I rely on the reports of those who do have access to the proper equipment. I also base my knowledge on what the majority of scientists have to say on the topic, I do not give much credence to those in the lunatic fringe who propose outrageous ideas.

[uwot]

Just how much of an ignorant layman or not I am is being shown, and will be seen. I have already admitted to being the most uneducated, simple and slow one. One reason I ask so many clarifying questions is so that you educated ones can teach Me what you actually do know. This knowledge is being shown here by "all" the answers I get to My questions.

The term "theory" does not mean the same thing in layman's and scientific uses.

Actually, a theory is just a theory. The facts that inspired Darwin were the beaks on finches native to different islands in the Galapagos. He speculated that, while they all had common ancestors, the different environments were better exploited by particular physiologies. The finches that best matched that physiology, were more likely to breed and rear offspring successfully, so the population as a whole tended toward the most successful physiology. The fossil record is very compelling evidence. Over generations, butterflies are recorded as adapting their camouflage to blend in with pollution; the less visible sere less likely to be eaten. The fact that viruses adapt is why influenza is still a risk, and bacteria that survive antibiotics are a problem. That species evolve is not a theory; it is demonstrably the case. The theory is that this is due to natural selection, rather than some sky pilot pulling the strings; or any other hypothesis that explains the same observable facts.
As for physics, the best example is gravity. Newton's law of universal gravitation is a mathematical description of demonstrable facts. It was superseded by Einstein's field equations, because they describe more demonstrable facts. What makes general relativity a theory, is that it is predicated on the existence of a 4 dimensional substance called spacetime. The irony is that special relativity is predicated on the assumption that no such substance exists.

To the layman a theory is an unproven idea or hunch, definitely a speculation on a subject. In science a theory is an idea that explains most or all that is known about a subject, thus a scientific theory is better than facts and much more than a speculation or hunch.

A layman generates a theory to account for the phenomena that they are familiar with. So do scientists.

[Dontaskme]

I would say that we disagree on the meaning of sound and let it go at that.

Huh?

I think we both understand the meaning of sound don't we?

I clap my hands together and sound appears ?

I think it's what hears the sound is what we disagree on ..?

There must be a knower that sound exists...the sound cannot be known to exist without first hand knowledge that it does exist...but you refuse to look at that part of the discussion for what ever reason?

. And that's the problem ..you only have half the story...you have no idea what the other half of the story is...so you just want to leave it right there...

I've tried to explain this to you ..but you ignore it by saying you disagree...well what are you disagreeing with, do you even know?

You obviously do not understand my posts do you? ...so be it.

.

[thedoc]

You obviously do not understand my posts do you? ...so be it.

No, I'm not ignoring what you have posted but it seems that you are saying that the vibrations in the air must be perceived by a consciousness to be a sound, and I am saying that the vibrations in the air, (or whatever other substance you choose) are a sound whether perceived or not. I understand what you are posting, I've heard and read it before but I don't agree with it.

BTW, I don't have any argument with you about what hears the sound it can be any living thing that has the capability to perceive sound.

[thedoc]

A layman generates a theory to account for the phenomena that they are familiar with. So do scientists.

No. a layman develops a theory to explain something they do not understand, a scientist develops a theory to explain what the do understand.

[Dontaskme]

You obviously do not understand my posts do you? ...so be it.

No, I'm not ignoring what you have posted but it seems that you are saying that the vibrations in the air must be perceived by a consciousness to be a sound, and I am saying that the vibrations in the air, (or whatever other substance you choose) are a sound whether perceived or not. I understand what you are posting, I've heard and read it before but I don't agree with it.

BTW, I don't have any argument with you about what hears the sound it can be any living thing that has the capability to perceive sound.

Alright, but we seem to be going over the same old story and going nowhere with it...I'm still left wondering how it is you believe sound to exist?

All I want to know from you is how do you know that sound exists as the vibrations in the air?

That's what I want you to explain? ..will you explain how you know, or what is it that knows? and where that knowing is located?

...otherwise, it makes no sense to just blurt out that sound exists whether there is anything around to hear it...or not hear it?

.