Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 20, 2023 16:11:54 GMT
English is my first language so using words that don't exist is too much for my we brain. other than a mis spelling caused by this crappy chinese iphone i’m struggling to find a non english word in my comment which confused you sufficiently for you to reply ‘?’ I understood you perfectly well, John. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 20, 2023 16:36:46 GMT
Imho the single religious concept most responsible for science was the notion that truth and honesty were valuable (or even sacred) in themselves. Without the value of honesty, there would be no science.
|
|
|
|
Post by johnofgwent on Jul 20, 2023 17:51:52 GMT
Darwin has nothing to do with this thread. Newtonian Mechanics is something that changed our understanding of the universe in the most fundamental way. The governance of the universe is attributed to God, so Newtonian Mechanics is God's law on how things should work. You would never have figured out relativity either if it were not for this understanding of the universal nature of it. Relativity was not so much a proof Newton was wrong, but just he had not uncovered the whole of the truth and as we investigate quantum effects we find more and more of these paradoxical goings on, but the main point is they work anywhere. We can do the calculations for a trip to Mars because we now know the laws of physics are the same there as they are here. Before Newton this was not the view. It was really backward. Indeed looking at the Dark Ages is a reminder of the scary reality if we ever want to regress in the technological sense. So kets getvthis straight You start a thread claiming one scientist’s religion shaped modern society I reply pointing out your view of his theology is inaccurate You clearly don’t like that and suggest if i learn chinese it might help my phone’s spell checker In the meanwhile i spell out the information i managed to scrape up to back up the stuff wiki has on the guy. Pointing out that he quite specifically had a problem not with the divinity of christ but with the concept that Christ was around at the beginning with God and the Holy Spirit. Which as others on here point out was somewhat heretical. You mention Newton’s ‘monotheism’ Since ‘monotheism’ is in fact the foundation of the Christian Church with Father Son and Holy Ghost all supposedly aspects of the same divine being, as opposed to the popular Greek and Roman alternatives of the time of its foundation, was Newton even monotheistic ? |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 20, 2023 21:29:23 GMT
Darwin has nothing to do with this thread. Newtonian Mechanics is something that changed our understanding of the universe in the most fundamental way. The governance of the universe is attributed to God, so Newtonian Mechanics is God's law on how things should work. You would never have figured out relativity either if it were not for this understanding of the universal nature of it. Relativity was not so much a proof Newton was wrong, but just he had not uncovered the whole of the truth and as we investigate quantum effects we find more and more of these paradoxical goings on, but the main point is they work anywhere. We can do the calculations for a trip to Mars because we now know the laws of physics are the same there as they are here. Before Newton this was not the view. It was really backward. Indeed looking at the Dark Ages is a reminder of the scary reality if we ever want to regress in the technological sense. So kets getvthis straight You start a thread claiming one scientist’s religion shaped modern society I reply pointing out your view of his theology is inaccurate You clearly don’t like that and suggest if i learn chinese it might help my phone’s spell checker In the meanwhile i spell out the information i managed to scrape up to back up the stuff wiki has on the guy. Pointing out that he quite specifically had a problem not with the divinity of christ but with the concept that Christ was around at the beginning with God and the Holy Spirit. Which as others on here point out was somewhat heretical. You mention Newton’s ‘monotheism’ Since ‘monotheism’ is in fact the foundation of the Christian Church with Father Son and Holy Ghost all supposedly aspects of the same divine being, as opposed to the popular Greek and Roman alternatives of the time of its foundation, was Newton even monotheistic ? I think the problem here is I have got this information from various sources and some things I have read contradict what you are saying. I distinctly recall him having a problem with Jesus, in that praying to Jesus was in his view the worshipping of a false idol. Anyway, what you are doing here is splitting hairs, and since he had a personal view that would not be made public we no doubt get a whole load of twaddle in exactly his view. We can only get it from others, which is problematic since a lot of those at the time did not get on with him. He had terrible problems working with others.
Anyway that is all by the bye. In his day the orthodoxy in mathematics and logic was the Greeks and they were totally pagan. They were never going to get it with their view. There had whole alternative ontology. The medieval bunch considered the Greeks as their textbooks. This was what school was in those days, to learn all the Greek classic books. Actually across over in China at the same time they had a similarly rigorous curriculum from Confucius. Both were set in their ways and both failed to suss it.
|
|
|
|
Post by distant on Jul 21, 2023 13:09:54 GMT
When Robert Hooke died, why did Newton order that Hooke's house be burned down? Bearing in mind that Hooke had accused Newton of plagiarism, was Newton afraid that some evidence for this might be found in Hooke's house?
It's true that Newton spent a lot of time on alchemy but he seemed to have spent the most time calculating the year when the end of the World begins. Apparently he thought he could deduce this from texts in the Bible. The date, by the way, is 2060, which he scrawled on a scrap of paper not long before he died. By chance, as far as humans are concerned, this date could turn out to be accurate.
|
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jul 21, 2023 14:07:16 GMT
When Robert Hooke died, why did Newton order that Hooke's house be burned down? Bearing in mind that Hooke had accused Newton of plagiarism, was Newton afraid that some evidence for this might be found in Hooke's house? It's true that Newton spent a lot of time on alchemy but he seemed to have spent the most time calculating the year when the end of the World begins. Apparently he thought he could deduce this from texts in the Bible. The date, by the way, is 2060, which he scrawled on a scrap of paper not long before he died. By chance, as far as humans are concerned, this date could turn out to be accurate. Hmm that's an interesting date. That's ten years after the West think they will achieve net zero. Who knows what that would do. The climate system is incredibly complicated and there is no guarantee that taking all the carbon out that has been pumped in at a steady rate all these years is likely to do. If they do get it wrong then 2060 might see crazy temperatures like -50C or + 70C. That would be on par with the chapter on Revelations. There was a time in the 9th century I think where the weather was terrible for a hundred years or so, and all the rain killed the crops where few survived. That was totally natural. |
|
