The Bible is ALWAYS right, even when it isn't.

[ricky]

Except that he's right.  Nothing's "proven" outside of mathematics.

Even that has assumptions, such as a=a

Nothing is fact. Happy? Now can we move past that?

he didn't say that.


mathematics is simply one way (out of many) of examining something.

[Adami]

If math isn't fact, and science isn't fact....then human beings have no way of confirming knowledge of any facts.


Which is fine. But it's not the point of what's being talked about and needs to be settled and put to the side.

[j]

It doesn't really matter.  We can know things with reasonable certainty based on what we can (or think we can) perceive and measure, which is all that's really important in practice.  Getting bogged down in the technicalities makes for fun arguments but doesn't serve much purpose otherwise.

-J

[GuineaPig]

I've yet to see the Bible contradict with 100% proven science. Fairly probable theories, however...

I stopped reading here.  There is no such thing as "100% proven science".  All of science is made of theories.

idk man, i was pretty sure we knew for a fact that the earth floated in space.
Job 26:7 — "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and  hangeth the earth upon nothing."

i also thought we knew that the moon was actually not a source of light, unlike many ancient peoples
Job 25:5 — "Behold even to the moon, and it shineth not; yea, the stars are not pure in his sight."

prior to the discovery of bacteria doctors would use a basin of water to wash their hands, which would transmit the disease. for some reason the bible specifies running watter
Leviticus 15:13 — "And when he that hath an issue is cleansed of his issue; then he shall number to himself seven days for his cleansing, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and shall be clean."

i also though we knew that we can deplete soil's minerals, which works pretty well with the year of jubilee

i guess blood cells haven't proven to do much to help us either?
Leviticus 17:11 — "For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is  the blood that  maketh an atonement for the soul."

I've seen a whole list of these statements, and they all require a very liberal interpretation.

[Ħ]

I think I was misunderstood.  The very nature of science is that nothing is provable, and that there is no such thing as fact.

[ClairvoyantCat]

Though there is definite truth in the notion of science's lack of "100% provability," it usually is (and ought to be) disregarded as a largely useless quibble.  I don't want to speak for DylanHomie directly, but I believe that when the notion of factual or provable science is thrown around it is making that assumption simply because the assumption needs to be made.  Nit-picking at what we can know to be true at that level has no real purpose other than to provide complete uncertainty in anything. 

[El JoNNo]

I think I was misunderstood.  The very nature of science is that nothing is provable, and that there is no such thing as fact.

That's not true. There are plenty of facts in science, it is all about proving what is true and gaining understanding.

[Ħ]

I think I was misunderstood.  The very nature of science is that nothing is provable, and that there is no such thing as fact.

That's not true. There are plenty of facts in science, it is all about proving what is true and gaining understanding.

Nope.

[Adami]

I think I was misunderstood.  The very nature of science is that nothing is provable, and that there is no such thing as fact.

That's not true. There are plenty of facts in science, it is all about proving what is true and gaining understanding.

Nope.

I agree with you Bro, but I just don't know what the point is?

I mean, are you saying that probabilities don't exist? That if everything that isn't fact has an equal probability of being true?

[Ħ]

I think I was misunderstood.  The very nature of science is that nothing is provable, and that there is no such thing as fact.

That's not true. There are plenty of facts in science, it is all about proving what is true and gaining understanding.

Nope.

I agree with you Bro, but I just don't know what the point is?

I mean, are you saying that probabilities don't exist? That if everything that isn't fact has an equal probability of being true?

The point was just that most people in this thread were misunderstanding the nature of science, so I was just correcting them.

As for the second question, I think probabilities do exist, and that different things have a different probability of being true.

[El JoNNo]

I think I was misunderstood.  The very nature of science is that nothing is provable, and that there is no such thing as fact.

That's not true. There are plenty of facts in science, it is all about proving what is true and gaining understanding.

Nope.

Yes, Gravity is a fact. There is a theory of Gravity which is an explanation of observations and mathematical calculations. But gravity is a fact in that it does happen. This whole we can never really know or prove anything is bull. We can prove many things within perceived reality that is shared by the majority. Testable claims and predictions help determine these facts.     

[j]

No, it is not a *fact* in the strict sense.  But I quote myself and the esteemed ClairvoyantCat from above to hopefully end this pointless argument.

It doesn't really matter.  We can know things with reasonable certainty based on what we can (or think we can) perceive and measure, which is all that's really important in practice.  Getting bogged down in the technicalities makes for fun arguments but doesn't serve much purpose otherwise.

-J

Though there is definite truth in the notion of science's lack of "100% provability," it usually is (and ought to be) disregarded as a largely useless quibble.  I don't want to speak for DylanHomie directly, but I believe that when the notion of factual or provable science is thrown around it is making that assumption simply because the assumption needs to be made.  Nit-picking at what we can know to be true at that level has no real purpose other than to provide complete uncertainty in anything. 

-J

[Ħ]

Thanks, j.