Why, yes, it is – technically speaking – invalid, if Christianity is true. But that does not invalidate it for the purposes of prediction and measurement. God doesn’t seem to make a habit of creating and destroying things.
I’m curious, though: why would you consider the First Law of Thermodynamics – which is an *inductive inference *-- axiomatically true? What distinguishes your claim to knowledge here from a falsifiable “belief”?
Reply 1 of 2.
Nothing quantifiable. And, I’ve made no claim to knowledge. Kindly tolerate an explanation, since you did ask.
When I originally confronted the conflict between my Catholic beliefs and the science of physics, I assumed that I was dealing with a conflict between belief and certainty. After working in the physical sciences and engaging anyone with a mind who would discuss this subject-set (and some without minds) I learned that science itself is riddled with and dependent upon beliefs of its own.
If I knew then what I do now, I’d not be regretting now the choices I made then. But I made them nonetheless and have long ago decided to own them, big time, on the tiny chance that while muddling through my personal search for fundamental understanding, I might have discovered things of use to others, or, having failed to do so heretofore, might yet.
In the course of studying physics I learned to distinguish between various kinds of laws. Some were elegant and simple. (Newton’s Laws, Maxwell’s equations, Special Relativity, and Einstein’s Nobel winning elucidation of the relationship between lightwaves and quantum mechanics.) Most of the rest of physics leaves me cold, especially QM. Even Hawking’s equation describing the balance of forces within the universe struck me as an ugly form, uncharacteristic of the classical universe I’d learned to love in my early studies.
And I have nothing good to say about the interpretations of the quantum mechanicians. They’ve proven better than anyone how extraordinarily intelligent individuals can adopt absurd beliefs.
And physics, like every other aspect of science, is permeated with beliefs. This is not the place to name them because no one here is interested. The science I once cherished as a young man has become, like the Republic founded in the late 18th century, a thing horribly changed and rotting from within.
You only need to watch History Channel pseudo-science to witness the former, or listen to our president or his wife to see the latter.
My ideas are derived from the elegant beliefs of physics and the classic beliefs of religion. I’ve cherry picked ideas. For example,
The Laws of Thermodynamics are clean, simple, and functional. They work. For me, that counts for a lot. Likewise the laws of mechanics and electrodynamics. All these laws work. They are all dependent upon thermodynamics, so if it was wrong, so are they.
I have a cherished friend who is a devout Catholic. She contributes her time, energy, and money to her Church. She is a Eucharistic Minister. She loves people. Actually, she loves all living things, and is currently sacrificing her life for her dog. She is one of the few genuinely devout, non-sanctimonious Catholics I’ve known, a truly good-hearted, agenda-free woman. And she has lived in constant physical agony for the last ten years. She never prays for herself. I do. For every prayer I offer, the universe dumps another load of poo upon her head. The almighty God she worships has done zip.
Bottom line: The only thing her beliefs do for her is to keep her in misery, on the expectation that at the end of it there will be some vague reward. For the most favorable, logical analysis of the reward, read Mark Twain’s “Captain Stormfield’s Trip to Heaven.” By my standards, her beliefs do not work.
I’m not basing that opinion upon simple current standards or upon belief in a one-shot life. I study lots of stuff. For practice, I do past-life work. My perspective on these issues is not confined to either conventional science or conventional religion.
So, my beliefs are fairly pragmatic. I am fond of ideas that work, and which make logical sense. Not “rational” sense. Anyone can warp words around idiotic concepts and convince someone of their “rationality.” Why bother?
I would prefer not to believe in a Creator or the human soul. If I was choosing my beliefs based upon personal preference, I’d be an atheistic Democrat— steal as much as possible from the people who actually contribute, spend it all on myself, then die and go away forever.
My beliefs include the idea of a created universe, which requires a creator. I have chosen not to believe in an omnipotent/omniscient creator because such concepts are illogical. In place of a catch-all God, I’ve chosen a logic-limited and extremely capable creator.
My creator is a good engineer. This means that He finds simple, elegant solutions to problems. I view the simple laws of physics (aforementioned) as those solutions which we’ve finally caught onto. I view the kludge laws of physics and science, (QM, the “Standard Model,”, Darwinism) as nonsense which we’ve invented because we have not been smart enough to sort through the trash data and find the elegant simplicity.;
