Bible Prophecy, TV, Changing Subject onto Common Sense - Science

1) Bible Prophecy, TV, Changing Subject onto Common Sense - Science, 2) Continued Debate with MC and JL on Common Sense and on Science of Subatomic Particles, 3) JL admits he's no physicist, MC gets a reductio ad absurdum when asking "for info" (and I am asked to leave fifth grade behind)

LL

Again, more science and the Bible

[The one where JL objects is where TV is said to confirm possibility of two prophecies: Christ returning on the clouds, Two witnesses lying dead for 3 and a half days, both so everyone can see. Matthew 24:30, Apocalypse 11:9-11]

JL

They are all pretty tenuous but are you really serious with the TV one?

LL

Absolutely I'm serious and so was Jesus who repeated those very words. Let that be a warning to you when the people you love

I'm not a pastor because there's money in it you can be sure of that. I'm nothing like those TV crooks. There's another prophecy in the Bible you miss Jake

JL

I don't even know how to respond... You think something that says Jesus will appear in the clouds and the entire world will see him is referring to TV, that's bad even for you Luke...

HGL

JL - when Jesus appears on the clouds, it will not be TV as we know it. But TV as we know it has shown such a thing is possible even for man, so how much more so for God.

When the two witnesses lie dead for three and a half days and every nation sees it, that will probably be a TV and Video event. It's before the second coming and the servants of Antichrist will have as much an interest in showing the corpses through TV to everyone as they will have to expose them to non-burial in the first place.

Possibly they will have been labelled terrorists and one will show them so as not to permit the kind of speculation when Osama Bin Laden was killed and drowned in the sea ("or was he really?").

JL

So the bible refers to everyone seeing an event, and you think it's prophecy of the invention of television? Wow...

If God exists then he can do anything, why would he have to be consistent with our current understanding of physics in the first place unless he is bound by it?

HGL

He does not HAVE to be consistent with it, He is not BOUND by it. But he has created Physic realities. Including those exploited by TV.

Thing is, He is also omniscient, including of things that to us are future. He never learns any new information (as God - cfr human soul of Jesus, which did).

Therefore He very clearly knew of TV.

For second coming, Christ as being God has access to something superior. For public humiliation of the two witnesses, the servants of Antichrist need not at all have come up with sth better than TV or youtube.

By the way, speaking of weak, how about "papers against creationism" being a private group, where all discussions are invisible to non-members?

"This is a site to post Scientific papers and articles that help counter Creationist arguments as well as to support the Biological Theory of Evolution. You can add to the Files or add in a comment."

Papers against Creationism

Rejoindre ce groupe pour afficher la discussion, publier et commenter./Groupe privé

Here is a paper FOR creationism and geocentrism:

Φιλολoγικά/Philologica: Kurukshetra War and Joshua's Long Day
http://filolohika.blogspot.com/2014/11/kurukshetra-war-and-joshuas-long-day.html

There for everyone and for everyone's critique, including your arguments.

JL

I agree, if he exists as described then he would know of TV. My point is that if that was the case, it would have much more convincing to give a better description instead of "image on clouds, everyone will see".

Anyone can join papers against creationism if they want I suppose, but maybe it's more selective because it seems to be made up of actual knowledgable people, it's not a debate group, it's a place to exchange journal papers etc.

Paper? That's a blog lol...

HGL

• 1) Second coming will NOT be TV (as that could be staged). It will be better.
  
  
• 2) Giving too good a description of what will probably be TV, public humiliation of corpses of Henoch and Elijah, would have helped create TV (with all its bad influence) too soon.

"Anyone can join papers against creationism if they want I suppose,"

You were invited.

"but maybe it's more selective because it seems to be made up of actual knowledgable people"

I have this bad gut feeling about secret or private groups of people supposed to be actually knowledgeable.

"it's not a debate group"

Why am I not surprised?

"it's a place to exchange journal papers etc."

Which the rest of the world will see - or not - when you decide.

"Paper? That's a blog lol..."

If you print it out on paper it's a paper. Are you seriously sharing the papers in your group on threshed cellulose?

TF

I disagree with TV here

But in revelation and Daniel It says the son of perdition will sit in the holy of Holies... and the whole world will see it ( surely TV )

Also Jesus mentioned that increased earth quake activity around the world is a sign of his return.... Of course they had no clue how to keep track of earthquakes back then, only now are we able to validate that

JL

Isn't it funny how none of bible "prophecies" are only noticed in hindsight? I wonder why...

[I might come back to this later, but as you will see, I missed this main point for now.]

I asked to join, and was let in.

Why? I know there are at least a few career scientists in there.

Because it's not in the description maybe?

Well yes... That's how all contributions are made to a discussion, I might have knowledge on a subject and choose to disclose it when I like.

Generally papers (we both know I'm referring to) are peer-reviewed and/or come from a reputable source. Not blogs.

HGL

• 1) as to peer review, I believe in post publishing.
  
  [Post publishing peer review, as opposed to a secret pre-publishing peer review, where public is never shown what is rejected nor who has made the review of what passes.]
  
  
• 2) as to blogs not being a reputable source, every blog is as reputable as its author. A so called reputable source on your side, National Geographic, has a few blogs gathered as Phenomena blog.
  
  My blog is as reputable as I, and I am inviting criticism from anyone who dares, I just sent link to Phil Plait.

JL

All I know is that geocentrism is nonsense, regardless of your blog post. You can't argue with the science.

MC (Buddhist? Yes!)

You can argue with the science, Jake. You can argue with a flower or a brick wall, too.

HGL

"All I know is that geocentrism is nonsense, regardless of your blog post."

In other words, regardless of my arguments on it.

"You can't argue with the science." - "You can argue with the science, JL. You can argue with a flower or a brick wall, too."

In other words, science can't be corrected by arguments.

So Heliocentrism and science are not a rational pursuit, but a religion. Thanks for informing me!

MC

//

In other words, regardless of my arguments on it.

//

let's see the equations and get a short list of predictions with ways to observe it.

JL

Nothing in science is corrected by arguments - it is corrected by evidence. I only had a very brief scan of your blog post, but I didn't see any revolutionary physics equations in there...

MC

I would love to see some equations manipulated instead of sound and thunder.

HGL

"let's see the equations and get a short list of predictions with ways to observe it." - "I only had a very brief scan of your blog post, but I didn't see any revolutionary physics equations in there..."

I have taught junior high school math. One pupil got a problem totally wrong. He made no calculation wrong, he had just put in the realistic variables in the wrong slots for the calculations. When I claim to correct Heliocentrism, it is by common sense argument, not by the equations accessible to and producible by very skilled physicists.

"Nothing in science is corrected by arguments - it is corrected by evidence."

Evidence corrects nothing, except if giving rise to an argument.

Evidence is material objects or testimony (btw, provided in blog post), or for that matter a calculation or equation.

But before evidence can correct anything one must make an argument that it is inconsistent with the theory it is presented as correcting.

MC

I see a lot of "blah blah blah" and no equations.

JL

Arguments can be baseless - evidence is required.

You're claiming you know better than those very skilled physicists, that your "common sense" trumps their actual scientific data and equations.

MC

Common sense is not so common. - Guy on $100

Science trumps common sense, too.

HGL

The fault of my very short termed math student.

"Take a rectangular surface with a circular hole. All measures of lengths (the sides and the radius) are given, Calculate remaining surface."

The young man either made a subtraction before a multiplication by itself and π or (less likely) missed which length belonged to rectangle and which to circle. I think the former.

Prove to me, the extremely complicated equations involved have not a flaw as obvious once it is pointed out.

"I see a lot of "blah blah blah" and no equations."

Including, I presume, the quote from your scientific hero Galileo Galilei?

No, science does NOT trump common sense, unless it can prove to common sense it is science. Even revelation, before trumping common sense must prove to common sense it is revelation, that is what apologetics is about.

JL

Once again, are you claiming to see flaws with physicists' equations, which have been scrutinised by their peers for generations?

Yes, science does trump common sense.

Common sense tells us heavier objects fall faster, but as we know that's not true.

HGL

"Once again, are you claiming to see flaws with physicists' equations, which have been scrutinised by their peers for generations?"

Their scrutiny has been on the side "are calculations right" (as those of my math student were) not on the side "are we looking in the wrong place as to understanding reality" (as he was looking in the wrong calculations to understand the surface remaining after cutting out the circle).

Plus, actually modern cosmology has only held sway since 1930. Heliocentric Cosmologies have shifted : Newton, Kant, Herschel, up to Kapteyn.

No, there has not even been scientific unity about modern cosmology being right, except for some few generations, which were very cut off from the kind of explanation I consider right, at least as far as scientific community is concerned.

Common sense tells us feathers fall slower than lead balls. It is not wrong there - except in vacuum.

Try again with your attacks on common sense. You see, unlike the private group, I am not keeping my own discussions a secret. The more you attack common sense, the better my readers will see how much you lack it.

Here is the blog where it will go btw:

HGL's F.B. writings
http://hglsfbwritings.blogspot.com

MC

//The more you attack common sense, the better my readers will see how much you lack it.//

Is that a passive aggressive insult or are you going to own it?

Explain, using common sense, QED. This might show you the superiority of the scientific method over common sense.

Then tell us about the common sense approach to telescopic lensing.

Or you can keep complaining that we aren't using our common sense and that we lack it because we disagree.

JL

But the feather isn't falling faster just because it's lighter, is it?

Depending on the size of the feather you could conceivably make it heavier than the bowling ball and it would still hit the ground last.

Is it common sense to imagine that a proton can cross a nucleus 10²² times in a single second?

Is it common sense to imagine quantum entanglement? Or the wave-particle duality of light? Or the effect of observation on the interactions of electrons through a double-slit?

MC

All those might be common sense to a super genius, Jake.

JL

Seeing as no one has ever understood them fully, I think this is another example of common sense being rather uncommon.

No reply HGL?

Also there are no secret discussions in the private group, it is literally just posts of papers with a brief headline of them, you'd be lucky to find 1 or 2 comments under it.

In fact, looking at the past month, there has been 12 OPs, with a grand total of 2 comments underneath.

HGL

MC it is information about what I am doing. The reply, Jake, had to wait till I had done it:

[Link to this message]

MC

I am a Buddhist if you want to update your blog.

We aren't attacking common sense. We are ordering it below scientific inquiry.

Is it common sense to imagine that a proton can cross a nucleus 10²² times in a single second?

Is the idea of an atom common sense? It took being able to indirectly observe it in an electron microscope to get people to rally behind that idea.

Common sense is fine for most of the problems we have in life. There are limits to it. Reason and science pick up where common sense leaves off.

Is that good enough for you Thomas Reid?

[I seem to have lost a reference here.]

JL

Exactly, common sense is used to deal with common situations, we have evolved to cope with them so of course our brains will be adapted in that way. However we did not evolve with any kind of selective pressure to understand sub-atomic particles or supernovae, zeptoseconds or billions of years, micrometers per hour or light speed - that is why these things are unintuitive; we have evolved to consider that middle ground which we inhabit, not the extremes that we now understand.

RH

How would Peter the fisherman know how to write?

HGL (to RH)

How would a Hebrew back then NOT have known how to write?

Assuming he didn't, how can he NOT have had a secretary after Pentecost Day (he might have had one anyway)?

HGL(to the other two)

"But the feather isn't falling faster just because it's lighter, is it?"

Did I say it was?

I said common sense says a feather falls slower than any ball of lead or for that matter even of leather.

"Is it common sense to imagine that a proton can cross a nucleus 10²² times in a single second?"

Whether you really mean proton or electron, this has - unlike a heavier feather falling slower than a lighter ball - not been observed.

"Is it common sense to imagine quantum entanglement?"

How exactly has it been demonstrated? Has it been conclusively demonstrated?

[Could have added: what is it anyway?]

"Or the wave-particle duality of light?"

Like the 10²² times crossing of a nucleus, this has not been directly observed.

Wave but not particle is as far as common sense is concerned preferrable once diffraction has been shown. Until you take Michelson Morley in a Heliocentric way, hat tip to Sungenis for that one.

"Or the effect of observation on the interactions of electrons through a double-slit?"

How do you observe even ONE electron when the smallest microscopy is electronic microscopy

"All those might be common sense to a super genius, Jake."

Never said that they were. I said common sense primes this, in the sense it has a last say whether one believes these things are right, these things are proven and correctly proven - or not.

"I am a Buddhist if you want to update your blog. "

Will.

"We aren't attacking common sense. We are ordering it below scientific inquiry."

And thereby ordering it wrong, too low, which is to attack it.

Common sense must say whether a certain enquiry is scientific about a certain question as either opposed to another enquiry being more scientific or the same enquiry actually answering another question

"Is the idea of an atom common sense? It took being able to indirectly observe it in an electron microscope to get people to rally behind that idea."

It is common sense that if electronic microscopy is reliable, then water consists (at least partly, not denying aether is part of it too) of molecules made up of one bigger globe and two smaller ones.

It is not common sense to say we know electrons are particles and come in shells around a nucleus. Unless you reason it through to arrive there

"Common sense is fine for most of the problems we have in life. There are limits to it. Reason and science pick up where common sense leaves off." - "Exactly, common sense is used to deal with common situations, we have evolved to cope with them so of course our brains will be adapted in that way."

You are in fact attacking reason itself.

Reasoning means to string intuitive common sense insights together so that what was not intuitive ultimately becomes so. Reasoning rightly means using correct logic while doing so.

Even if one were to make a mistake by supposing a false premiss while reasoning logically, and therefore arrived at a false conclusion, the exercise would not be futile, since a correction of facts and a correct memory of logical steps gone through can inspire a new correct reasoning and therefore a new correct conclusion.

"However we did not evolve with any kind of selective pressure to understand sub-atomic particles or supernovae, zeptoseconds or billions of years, micrometers per hour or light speed - that is why these things are unintuitive; we have evolved to consider that middle ground which we inhabit, not the extremes that we now understand."

If this were so, you would have no reason to say you understand any of it.

"Then tell us about the common sense approach to telescopic lensing."

To understand what needs to be done, and to calculate after that understanding. It is common sense that a complex task takes complex calculations (or a lot of simple ones, but complex if taken together - or even simplified by a mathematician who has made complex calculations simple for scientists).

What is NOT common sense is to start calculating before you know what there is to calculate.

You do no calculations about telescopic lensing in order to decide whether you trust your naked eye.

"Or you can keep complaining that we aren't using our common sense and that we lack it because we disagree."

I was indeed complaining and am still doing so, about your lack of common sense in trying to impose a method before it has common-sensically been decided if it is the right one.

What we see through telescopes, we see either from earth or from a point near earth.

I know very little about astronomy as seen from Mars, but I did learn the four lightyears to Proxima Centauri have not been confirmed by observing parallax from Mars.

I have no definite idea on whether even "annual aberrration" has been confirmed from Mars.

Now, if we had both from Earth and from Mars, we would know at least one is moving.

But insofar as we have only from Earth (which is the case for parallax), we cannot tell from there whether our standing point for observations is moving annually, or whether both Sun and Proxima Centauri are. In the latter case, we cannot tell whether they move just in time or even in tandem.

In other words, we have no definite reason that stands up to common sense, to good logic applied to undisputable observations, to assume either Proxima Centauri is 4 light years away OR that we are moving through space.

"Also there are no secret discussions in the private group, it is literally just posts of papers with a brief headline of them, you'd be lucky to find 1 or 2 comments under it."

OK, but as I am not part, I do not know which these papers are and cannot decide whether to answer them or not.

While you can spread a paper to 16 different people and I can come up against it time after time in discussions with different ones of them or with their contacts.

That is where I tried to be more fair to you than your side is to us.

MC

// Never said that they were. I said common sense primes this, in the sense it has a last say whether one believes these things are right, these things are proven and correctly proven - or not.//

Common "senses" or common sense? They aren't the same thing.

Appealing to the eyes is not the same as appealing to common sense. I know why one would palm this card in the argument.

// "Or the effect of observation on the interactions of electrons through a double-slit?"

How do you observe even ONE electron when the smallest microscopy is electronic microscopy? //

Here, again, the eye is not common sense. Saving the appearances is the phrase that describes what you're talking about. Common sense is more like folk wisdom.

Milton (Paradise Lost, Book 8) as an exemplary exposition of the conception of Saving the Appearances:

Or if they list to try
Conjecture, he his fabric of the heavens
Hath left to their disputes, perhaps to move
His laughter at their quaint opinions wide
Hereafter, when they come to model heaven,
And calculate the stars; how they will wield
The mighty frame; how build, unbuild, contrive,
To save the appearances; how gird the sphere
With centric and eccentric scribbled o'er,
Cycle and epicycle, orb in orb.

(SA 48; my italics [where?])

HGL

I was very exactly referring to common sense (sg) when saying it would trust the eye, except what should be accepted. Even if eyes are in your terminology one of the "common" - usually referred to as one of the "five" - senses.

Saving the appearances is not what I am talking about, probably you are tired after too much meditation.

[I am tired after waking too early, wrote « mediation » instead of « meditation »]

I was saying one cannot observe even one electron.

I have no doubt you have somehow deduced it. But "somehow" may be proof to you, it is not to me, since I can suspect your deduction was faulty.

That scepticism in face of bold claims of "deducing the cigar brand from the ashes" is also common sense, just as the general trust in eyes is.

Sorry, you are not scoring high now …

And pretending to give me language lessons will not help you out with all readers

Saving appearances is one task on any theory which as far as it goes has a pretty stark contrast to them. Like Heliocentrism.

Not saving the appearances means a theory is damned (in its shape) if contradicting visible evidence.

For instance, appearance of flatness on land is saved by observation that very small angles look like parallel lines or that angles differring very little from 180° look like line just continuing straight on.

It remains a task of any scientific theory, but before we "save the appearances" instead of adherring to them at face value, I like some proof they are if ever so marginally misleading.

And before I accept a certainly not directly appearing fact, I like some proof it is validly deduced from facts that do appear.