Final-Fan said:
appolose said:
Final-Fan said:
...
Look, I thought your objection was about the fact that the beginning of the universe acted in violation of the laws of physics, so a person trying to be totally consistent HAD to discard science/accept supernatural interference.
So Rath's counterargument was that math/science can ACCOUNT for the laws of physics being different at the very beginning of the universe but not today. Not necessarily PROVE that it DID happen a particular way, but show that it was possible for it to happen in a way that is harmonious with known science. (So a person can have a consistent view in that way without accepting supernatural interference.)
It seems to me that he was successful, and that you have yet to give an example like the one he asked for, and which you apparently thought you could provide.
|
Again, we are talking about a pretended well-established observation (which, in this case, is that the laws of physics are constant). If it is true that science and math can demonstrate counter-observations, than that would not be a well-established observation, which is what my hypothetical scenario requires.
|
*headdesk*
Rath's scenario, where math/science allow for the laws of physics to be different ONLY AT THE VERY BEGINNING of the universe, does not constitute contradiction (or, as I believe you said, mathematical counter-observation of science's observation) of the laws of physics being constant outside of that time period.
Also, what exactly do you mean by "well-established observation"?
|
I mean that Rath's scenario is another observation; this is true, yes? We haven't always thought they the laws of physics were different at the beginning of time, right? In my scenario, this is a place where that observation has not yet been made.
By well-established, I mean that it has been observed so much that an empiricist would say "Ok, that is definitely true".
