H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Why does truth have to be useful?
- Status
B
Bradskii
Guest
Because if someone can claim its worthless then they can imply it’s not true.
‘What? The world goes around the SUN? And what possible use it that useless snippet of information to anyone, Nicholaus? Obvious nonsense’.
Note: it actually revolves around the barycenter, but let’s not get pedantic.
R
Richca
Guest
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters (Gen. 1: 1-2)
Creation involves the production of being out of nothing which can only be done by God so these first two verses of Genesis involve the instantaneous creation of the totality of the matter of the physical universe represented by the heavens and the earth of verse 1 and the waters of verse 2. Formless matter or prime matter (prime matter can only come about by creation from God) does not exist without form so the substance of the heavens, what is called space today, is made from some kind of matter we are not familiar with, an aether like matter, and the earth and waters are elemental substances (composites of form and matter) from times past, but today we think of the elements such as on the periodic table.
However, the elements on the periodic table appear to be composed of yet simpler elements even some that can exist apart from the elements on the periodic table such as electrons, protons, photons, and possibly neutrons but I understand the neutrons are quite unstable. Some of the parts of either the protons or nuetrons such as quarks or bosons I believe are not found apart from the protons or neutrons in the real world. Electrons, protons, and photons are elemental substances I believe composed of substantial form and prime matter (and accidents such as their charges and energies) when existing apart from the elements they form a part of on the periodic table
Accordingly, the first substances God created out of nothing besides the substance of the heavens were the elements (in their totality though they are capable of substantial change into one another) we are familiar with such as individual electrons, protons, neutrons, possibly photons, and probably at least some of the elements formed out of electrons, protons, and neutrons on the periodic table especially hydrogen and helium which according to the present science amounts to 98% of the elemental substances found in the universe on the periodic table
It is not out of the question that God in this initial act of creation (v.1) did create the earth and the waters covering the earth but the earth as v. 2 says in some fashion formless, i.e., God created the elements out of which the earth was later going to be further formed such as on day 3. The elements I’m talking about here are individual protons, nuetrons, and electrons and/or ‘elements’ formed from these such as oxygen and nitrogen, silicon, etc. (and even the compound ‘water’), but not the earth as we know it today or its completed state such as day 3; in as yet a formless state and possibly the waters too. There were no radioactive isotopes or elements in this stage of the earth at least ones we know about. Our sun, moon, and planets also could have been created in this initial act of creation (certainly their matter was even if it was in some other substance) but they too in a formless state. Since the earth, our sun, moon, and solar system was going to be the home of mankind, God had a special eye on it
Creation involves the production of being out of nothing which can only be done by God so these first two verses of Genesis involve the instantaneous creation of the totality of the matter of the physical universe represented by the heavens and the earth of verse 1 and the waters of verse 2. Formless matter or prime matter (prime matter can only come about by creation from God) does not exist without form so the substance of the heavens, what is called space today, is made from some kind of matter we are not familiar with, an aether like matter, and the earth and waters are elemental substances (composites of form and matter) from times past, but today we think of the elements such as on the periodic table.
However, the elements on the periodic table appear to be composed of yet simpler elements even some that can exist apart from the elements on the periodic table such as electrons, protons, photons, and possibly neutrons but I understand the neutrons are quite unstable. Some of the parts of either the protons or nuetrons such as quarks or bosons I believe are not found apart from the protons or neutrons in the real world. Electrons, protons, and photons are elemental substances I believe composed of substantial form and prime matter (and accidents such as their charges and energies) when existing apart from the elements they form a part of on the periodic table
Accordingly, the first substances God created out of nothing besides the substance of the heavens were the elements (in their totality though they are capable of substantial change into one another) we are familiar with such as individual electrons, protons, neutrons, possibly photons, and probably at least some of the elements formed out of electrons, protons, and neutrons on the periodic table especially hydrogen and helium which according to the present science amounts to 98% of the elemental substances found in the universe on the periodic table
It is not out of the question that God in this initial act of creation (v.1) did create the earth and the waters covering the earth but the earth as v. 2 says in some fashion formless, i.e., God created the elements out of which the earth was later going to be further formed such as on day 3. The elements I’m talking about here are individual protons, nuetrons, and electrons and/or ‘elements’ formed from these such as oxygen and nitrogen, silicon, etc. (and even the compound ‘water’), but not the earth as we know it today or its completed state such as day 3; in as yet a formless state and possibly the waters too. There were no radioactive isotopes or elements in this stage of the earth at least ones we know about. Our sun, moon, and planets also could have been created in this initial act of creation (certainly their matter was even if it was in some other substance) but they too in a formless state. Since the earth, our sun, moon, and solar system was going to be the home of mankind, God had a special eye on it
Last edited:
R
Richca
Guest
(continued)
‘And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light’. This I believe involved the formation of the galaxies if that wasn’t already done in some fashion in vv. 1-2, and the stars by God as well as the Cosmic Microwave Background in this process. This ‘day’ from the present science lasted billions of years so not all the stars and galaxies had to be created and formed by God at the same time or around the same time although probably a majority of them were which I believe is what the present science says. Whether stars can form by natural processes, I don’t know, astronomers have star formation theories. I believe all the galaxies and most of the stars if not all of them were created and formed by God himself out of the material, the ‘elements’, he initially created in verse 1.
‘And God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light’. This I believe involved the formation of the galaxies if that wasn’t already done in some fashion in vv. 1-2, and the stars by God as well as the Cosmic Microwave Background in this process. This ‘day’ from the present science lasted billions of years so not all the stars and galaxies had to be created and formed by God at the same time or around the same time although probably a majority of them were which I believe is what the present science says. Whether stars can form by natural processes, I don’t know, astronomers have star formation theories. I believe all the galaxies and most of the stars if not all of them were created and formed by God himself out of the material, the ‘elements’, he initially created in verse 1.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Not at all.
That’s actually one of the criticisms about evolutionary theories, that selection occurs solely on utilitarian grounds. The beauty of a bird’s feathers and mating dance is reduced to a display of fitness in that paradigm.
But, creation myth do have a role in telling us who we are and our place in a universe that may be variously presented as being capricious, filled with spirits, guided by ancestors, ultimately one supreme identity, unconscious nothingness, or an Act of Divine Love.
Science to my mind, as a revelation of truth, does so by revealing God’s glory - the Truth. If it does not do that directly, if alternatively, it does not lead to some practical end, it is mere illusion, going nowhere, a circling flight of fancy.
Last edited:
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
Absolutely. That’s the whole point. Caeli enarrant gloriam Dei, et opera manuum ejus annuntiat firmamentum.
G
Gorgias
Guest
They’re applications of the principle, though, no?
I’m with @Hugh_Farey – why does science have to have ‘applications’? There’s such a thing as ‘pure science’, where it’s done on its own merits and for the search for knowledge and truth. (And, not surprisingly, later generations tend to find practical applications nevertheless!)
Anyway, applications are ‘engineering’ – not science, per se…
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
There’s a reason I do applied science. To my mind, unless the science is directed to some practical end or reveals God, it is worse than useless - a tool in the ultimately meaningless quest for power, honour, and wealth, or the pleasure of withdrawal from the anxieties of the world into fanciful speculations. Truth, as it gives rise to faith, demands action. We have it within us to do our part in transforming the world into God’s kingdom, to use what we know in the service of the Good. This sounds preachy on the reread; it’s not meant to be anything other than a statement of fact.
H
Hugh_Farey
Guest
This is so confusing it is difficult to know what to make of it at all. What kind of science is not “directed to some practical end or reveals God”? To me, all science reveals God. But then, what kind of “practical end” is not directed to “power, honour or wealth”, especially as regards the power, honour and wealth/health of the poor.
“Truth, as it gives rise to faith, demands action.” What does this mean? What kind of action is demanded by the information that George Washington was born in February?
“We have it within us to do our part in transforming the world into God’s kingdom, to use what we know in the service of the Good.” Indeed we do. And the more we know, the more likely we are to have the resources so to do.
T
TheAmazingGrace
Guest
Yeah. Whatever.
G
Gorgias
Guest
So, that’s fine for you. However, that doesn’t mean that your definition is the definition for all science and all scientists.
There’s lots of math that has never been applied to a particular goal. Would you call it “useless”? I would think that all mathematicians would disagree with you…
A
Aloysium
Guest
When corporate and governmental funding is involved, as in every facet of life, the piper calls the tune. Universities include these sources as well as those of individual benefactors. Everyone has an opinion as to what is important and revealing the glory of God is typically not on the list, let alone at the top.
Individual scientists tend to marvel at what they find, at least at some point in their careers. A lot of it has to do with the mysteries and grandeur of nature, which is more of a tendency towards idolatry, the worshipping of a creature rather than the Creator.
As to the sort of research that actually runs counter to the revelation of God, going in the direction of the glorification of mankind, what originally brought and continues to bring about our downfall, includes that which is directed towards the building of better ways to kill ourselves, that which utilizes human embryos, pretty much anything that runs counter to God’s will that we love one another. I would think that any untruth would by definition not reveal God, but can we ever get to the Truth outside of meeting God face to face. While in its purest form “science is directed to some practical end”, its reality as a social institution fails to reach that end.
We can individually choose pursue the truth and use our knowledge for practical loving ends. In that case it is not so much to increase people’s power, wealth and honour, although these may be byproducts, but to share what God has given us with our brothers and sisters. These worldly goods are relative and in themselves will never satisfy. What does is perfecting our relationships in Christ.
The information about George Washington is contained within a truth that involves time, a past and future surrounding a present in which stuff happens. His birthdate is an aspect of the truth that is his existence within eternity. It reveals the glory of God inWashington’s actual being in time. His accomplishments tell us something about what is possible. We are reminded of the internal and external givens that come to form our lives and of the free will, which we have been granted to accomplish what God demands of us. The truth and reallity of any fact, all existing within their context, where it touches the Divine, is a call to action, to put practical use of the Love that He is as the Truth itself.
Last edited:
A
Aloysium
Guest
Interestingly, many mathematical discoveries/inventions wre developed before a role was found for them. These, beginning with that of Arabic numerals, the number zero, and decimals, include complex numbers (square roots of negative number), binary numbers and Boolian logic based on on 0’s and 1’s, and non-Euclidean geometry that was used by Einstein in developing general relativity, Mathematics is an important method we use to understand our worldThere’s lots of math that has never been applied to a particular goal. Would you call it “useless”? I would think that all mathematicians would disagree with you…
Last edited:
G
Gorgias
Guest
Exactly my point.
Even if a scientific discovery seems “useless” today, some application might be found for it in the future.
G
Glark
Guest
The Resurrection is an example of “biblical literalism”. If you place science above it, you will have to reject this Catholic dogma.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
The problem with a lot of scientists is pride - they think they can determine with a fair degree of certainty what happened on earth, not just thousands of years ago, but BILLIONS of years ago! … and millions of folks are gullible enough to believe their stories! Meanwhile, they ignore the history of the earth written by God in His Bible, dismissing it contemptuously as ignorant, primitive myths.
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Thank you for these example of microevolution, which no one disputes. By “evolution” I mean the theory that life on earth evolved from microbes - this is completely useless “information”, which, nevertheless, the scientific community, etc is obsessed with. No practical application of science depends on it (which is hardly surprising - fairy tales rarely matter when it comes to applied science).
G
Glark
Guest
No, but that’s not my point, which you are trying to evade. My point is that it is a very, very strange phenomenon that the scientific community and millions of other people are obsessed with ramming a completely useless theory down the throats of everyone possible, as if it’s somehow vitally important. Evidently, most evo’s are so blind and brainwashed that they don’t even notice that said phenomenon exists. The existence of said phenomenon cannot be explained by the scientific worth of said theory, as it has ZERO scientific worth. So the reason for the existence of said phenomenon must lie outside the realm of science - the promotion of atheism, for example. Come on, wake up; it’s not rocket surgery!
Last edited:
G
Glark
Guest
Theoretical science can be a charlatan’s paradise. Personally, I find scientific theories that can’t be verified rather boring, as I can’t be sure if I’m dealing with fact or fantasy. If I want to be entertained by fantasy, I’ll watch Star Trek or read some evolution science.
G
Glark
Guest
After 150 years, not a single practical use has been found for what is supposedly one the greatest “discoveries” in science - that life evolved from microbes. Fast-forward another 150 years and the cupboard with still be empty.
- Status