Message from @floridaswamptrash
Discord ID: 639886924236193813
Modern science would only disagree with being able to evaluate the conclusions of intelligent design. It can however decrease confidence in certain premises which lead to the conclusion of intelligent design.
for example, a ID believer may say "well these certain proteins have no way of evolving gradually", however if science could point to a way or example of them gradually evolving that would decrease confidence in the premise ID believers use
science can't really attack the conclusion of ID though
And you can keep complicating premises which still reach that conclusion
Like saying dinosaur bones are tricks planted by God or something
So if the premises are set up in a reasonable physical way science can increase or decrease confidence in those premises, but if they are unreasonable maybe not
proof of Newton's law of equal and opposite reaction: punch a table as hard as you can, does it hurt? Thats cause the table exerts a resistant force against your punch, thus equal and opposite reaction. From this we can prove the existence of a normal force and gravity since the force of gravity is what that little number is measuring when we stand on a scale and in order for us to stay on the ground and not shoot through the floor we would need to have a force opposing it, this is the normal force and as long as you are not in free fall you will have a force of gravity equal to that of the normal force. Qualifications: I live in my parent's basement mostly watching porn and contemplating my eventual demise.
What are you arguing again? @Fran
@floridaswamptrash Often times you reach conclusions about God or supernatural beings through physical observations; Science can decrease or increase confidence in those physical observations, but you can still change your argument to being purely nonphysical which makes it outside the realm of science
However the usefulness of Science is that you have empirical evidence for these physical claims and then if your argument naturally leads to evidence of God from these claims it gives you empirical evidence for the existence of God
if you are in a fully nonphysical argument for God you lose this advantage; you cant use empirical or physical evidence for the existence of God
Chance is the science's version of God
That would be like the ontological proof
Its purely a priori
you need 0 physical observations for it
The cosmological argument at least requires the physical observation that stuff exists and potentials are realized
@RoundEarther Science doesnt prove stuff. Your experiment is evidence that Newton's Law holds as a valid model in your experiment.
If you assume universality (That the laws of physics are the same everywhere or something like this) you can say you have high confidence Newton's laws will hold if you preform your experiment 100 ft to the left or 10000 ft above
Follow the instructions at the beginning of the proof
cringe
Judging from your comment i take it you didnt follow the instructions given. Newtons laws actually do hold universally, however we apply different conditions to them given the circumstances (under water, in the air, spinning around on a merry go roun)
And actually i can, i ran an experiment a while ago for a class, i can send you the data
Newtons laws dont hold in noninertail reference frames
Infact an inerital reference frame is by definition one where newtons laws do hold
They do, actually just finished doing this in class
Lemme see if i can write up the proof for it
I guess Newtons 3rd law would still apply in noninertial reference frames actuall
So only the 1st and 2nd
So imagine the your noninertial reference frame is like a camera view moving over your inertial reference frame.
They still hold as while viewpoint is changing
No they hold with the introduction of fictitious forces
Which are added ad hoc to make them work
When I launch an artillerly shell and the earth rotates under it, i see it move to the left or right in my frame on the ground
No forces are acting on it in those directions according to me, yet it moves in those directions
newtons laws dont hold
We just proved the existence of these so called "fictitious" forces, if there was something you dont understand i encourage questioning
So here we can see that the force of the earth acting on the artillery shell is so minimal that it would not dramatically affect trajectory
This is due to the mass of the earth being massively larger than that of the shell
By your definition noninertial reference frames do not exist because newtons first two laws always work