Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Atheist Perversion of Reality
April 5, 2009 | Jean F. Drew

Posted on 04/05/2009 8:10:35 PM PDT by betty boop

The Atheist Perversion of Reality
By Jean F. Drew

Atheism we have always had with us it seems. Going back in time, what was formerly a mere trickle of a stream has in the modern era become a raging torrent. Karl Marx’s gnostic revolt, a paradigm and methodology of atheism, has arguably been the main source feeding that stream in post-modern times.

What do we mean by “gnostic revolt?” Following Eric Voëgelin’s suggestions, our definition here will be: a refusal to accept the human condition, manifesting as a revolt against the Great Hierarchy of Being, the most basic description of the spiritual order of universal reality.

The Great Hierarchy is comprised of four partners: God–Man–World–Society, in their mutually dynamic relations. Arguably all the great world religions incorporate the idea of this hierarchy. It is particularly evident in Judaism and Christianity. One might even say that God’s great revelation to us in the Holy Bible takes this hierarchy and the relations of its partners as its main subject matter. It has also been of great interest to philosophers going back to pre-Socratic times — and evidently even to “anti-philosophers” such as Karl Marx.

In effect, Marx’s anti-philosophy abolishes the Great Hierarchy of Being by focusing attention mainly on the God and Man partners. The World and Society partners are subsidiary to that, and strangely fused: World is simply the total field of human social action, which in turn translates into historical societal forms.

Our principal source regarding the Marxist atheist position is Marx’s doctoral dissertation of 1840–1841. From it, we can deduce his thinking about the Man partner as follows:

(1) The movement of the intellect in man’s consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe. A human self-consciousness is the supreme divinity.

(2) “Faith and the life of the spirit are expressly excluded as an independent source of order in the soul.”

(3) There must be a revolt against “religion,” because it recognizes the existence of a realissimum beyond human consciousness. Marx cannot make man’s self-consciousness “ultimate” if this condition exists.

(4) The logos is not a transcendental spirit descending into man, but the true essence of man that can only be developed and expressed by means of social action in the process of world history. That is, the logos is “immanent” in man himself. Indeed, it must be, if God is abolished. And with God, reason itself is abolished as well: To place the logos in man is to make man the measure of all things. To do so ineluctably leads to the relativization of truth, and to a distorted picture of reality.

(5) “The true essence of man, his divine self-consciousness, is present in the world as the ferment that drives history forward in a meaningful manner.” God is not Lord of history, the Alpha and Omega; man is.

As Voëgelin concluded, “The Marxian spiritual disease … consists in the self-divinization and self-salvation of man; the intramundane logos of human consciousness is substituted for the transcendental logos…. [This] must be understood as the revolt of immanent consciousness against the spiritual order of the world.”

How Marx Bumps Off God
So much for Marx’s revolt. As you can see, it requires the death of God. Marx’s point of theocidal departure takes its further impetus from Ludwig von Feuerbach’s theory that God is an imaginary construction of the human mind, to which is attributed man’s highest values, “his highest thoughts and purest feelings.”

In short, Feuerbach inverts the very idea of the imago Dei — that man is created in the image of God. God is, rather, created by man, in man’s own image — God is only the illusory projection of a subjective human consciousness, a mere reflection of that consciousness and nothing more.

From this Feuerbach deduced that God is really only the projected “essence of man”; and from this, Feuerbach concluded that “the great turning point of history will come when ‘man becomes conscious that the only God of man is man himself.’”

For Marx, so far so good. But Marx didn’t stop there: For Feuerbach said that the “isolated” individual is the creator of the religious illusion, while Marx insisted that the individual has no particular “human essence” by which he could be identified as an isolated individual in the first place. For Marx, the individual in reality is only the sum total of his social actions and relationships: Human subjectivity has been “objectified.” Not only God is gone, but man as a spiritual center, as a soul, is gone, too.

Marx believed that God and all gods have existed only in the measure that they are experienced as “a real force” in the life of man. If gods are imagined as real, then they can be effective as such a force — despite the “fact” that they are not really real. For Marx, it is only in terms of this imaginary efficacy that God or gods can be said to “exist” at all.

Here’s the beautiful thing from Marx’s point of view: Deny that God or the gods can be efficacious as real forces in the life of man — on the grounds that they are the fictitious products of human imagination and nothing more — and you have effectively killed God.

This insight goes to the heart of atheism. In effect, Marx’s prescription boils down to the idea that the atheist can rid himself and the world at large of God simply by denying His efficacy, the only possible “real” basis of His existence. Evidently the atheist expects that, by his subjective act of will, he somehow actually makes God objectively unreal. It’s a kind of magic trick: The “Presto-Changeo!” that makes God “disappear.”

Note that, if God can be gotten rid of by a stratagem like this, so can any other aspect of reality that the atheist dislikes. In effect, the cognitive center which — strangely — has no “human essence” has the power of eliminating whatever sectors of objective reality it wants to, evidently in full expectation that reality itself will allow itself to be “reduced” and “edited down” to the “size” of the atheist’s distorted — and may we add relentlessly imaginary? — conception.

To agree with Marx on this — that the movement of the intellect in man’s “divine” consciousness is the ultimate source of all knowledge of the universe — is to agree that human thought determines the actual structure of reality.

Instead of being a part of and participant in reality, the atheist claims the power to create it as if he himself were transcendent to, or standing outside or “beyond” reality. As if he himself were the creator god.

This type of selective operation goes a long way towards explaining the fanatical hostility of many Darwinists today regarding any idea of design or hierarchy in Nature — which, by the way, have always been directly observable by human beings who have their eyes (and minds) open. What it all boils down to seems to be: If we don’t like something, then it simply doesn’t exist.

We call the products of such selective operations second realities. They are called this because they are attempts to displace and finally eliminate the First Reality of which the Great Hierarchy of Being — God–Man–World–Society — is the paradigmatic core.

First Reality has served as the unifying conceptual foundation of Western culture and civilization for the past two millennia at least. What better way to destroy that culture and civilization than an all-out attack on the Great Hierarchy of Being?

Thus we see how the gnosis (“wisdom”) of the atheist — in this particular case, Marx — becomes the new criterion by which all operations in (the severely reduced and deformed) external reality are to be conducted, understood, and judged.

Conclusion
Marx is the self-proclaimed Paraclete of an a-borning utopia in which man will be “saved” by being reduced to essentially nothing. With God “gone,” man, as we denizens of First Reality know him, disappears also.

But whatever is left of him becomes a tool for social action. He becomes putty in the hands of whatever self-selected, self-proclaimed Paraclete seeking to promote his favored Second Reality du jour (usually for his own personal benefit) manages to stride onto the public stage and command an audience.

Such a charmed person blesses himself with the power to change human society and history forever, to bring about man’s self-salvation in a New Eden — an earthly utopia— by purely human means.

Of course, there’s a catch: As that great denizen of First Reality, Sir Thomas More, eminently recognized, the translation into English of the New Latin word “utopia” is: No-place.

In short, human beings can conjure up alternative realities all day long. But that doesn't mean that they can make them “stick.” Reality proceeds according to its own laws, which are divine in origin, and so cannot be displaced by human desire or volition, individually or collectively.

And yet the Marxian expectation argues otherwise.

Out of such fantastic, idiotic, specifically Marxian/atheist foolishness have great revolutions been made. And probably will continue to be made — so long as psychopaths hold the keys to the asylum.

Note:
All quotations from Eric Voëgelin’s article, “Gnostic Socialism: Marx,” in: The Collected Works of Eric Voëgelin, Volume 26 — History of Political Ideas: Crisis and the Apocalypse of Man. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1999.

©2009 Jean F. Drew

April 4, 2009


TOPICS: Current Events; General Discusssion; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS: atheism; atheists; culture; jeandrew; jeanfdrew; marx; reality; voegelin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 1,281-1,292 next last
To: allmendream

John ch 6........
http://www.awitness.org/biblehtm/joh/joh6.htm


1,041 posted on 06/28/2009 8:15:51 AM PDT by hosepipe (This propaganda has been edited to include some fully orbed hyperbole....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1034 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; CottShop

Oh thank you for the info, dearest sister in Christ. I do recall something along those lines. But a Goggle search turned up nothing....


1,042 posted on 06/28/2009 8:20:31 AM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
You're quite welcome, dearest sister in Christ!
1,043 posted on 06/28/2009 8:23:42 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1042 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
I see the idea of God as a red herring. Also the idea of a God based ego, is another false path.

Well jeepers you're entitled to your opinion LeGrande. What can I say? Everyone has opinions.

1,044 posted on 06/28/2009 8:24:53 AM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: MissTickly
If you have never had independent thought, you wouldn’t and couldn’t understand HOW SIMPLY WONDERFUL IT IS.

Please define "independent thought." Then explain why I don't have it.

1,045 posted on 06/28/2009 8:26:38 AM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1026 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

[[I’m fairly certain this is the same guy whose theory we’ve previously reviewed and (as I recall) was dubbed “the kid” at DarwinCentral.]]

If I’m not mistaken, I think Samson Dakota was dubbed that at Darwin central too


1,046 posted on 06/28/2009 8:30:07 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande
"Science is based on falsification, and what isn't falsified isn't proven, it remains a theory." This is a very widely held mistake. Perhaps because a paper about the origin of the concept of "falsification" is actually mistakenly titled "Science is Falsification."

The concept of falsification described in the paper, which is actually a speech given by the originator of the concept, the philosopher (not a scientist) Karl Popper, is actually not about what science itself is, but about what constitutes a truly scientific "theory." As Karl Popper explains, it is not about the validity of science, but what distinguishes real science from pseudoscience. (The concept was originally developed around 1920. There was a lot of science done before that date which certainly did not depend on any concepts developed by Popper.)

Please read the article to understand exactly what Karl Popper means, because it is not what you are saying at all.

The concept is not really difficult but it is amazing so few people really understand it. It should not be called "falsification," but "falsifiability," and it essentially means any theory or hypothesis for which some test cannot be devised which would prove the theory or hypothesis to be false, if it is false, cannot be truly scientific.

The purpose of the concept is to prevent just any wild conjecture to be allowed acceptance as "science." It has nothing to do with the process of science itself, but about what may or may not be legitimately called science. It definitely does NOT say that science is falsification or attempts to falsify anything.

In fact, it says the opposite. If a theory is a truly scientific one, there will be some test or experiment or observation that will prove it false, if it is false. For example (from Popper), if Einstein's prediction that light will be "bent" by massive gravitational force is true, observing the light from stars that pass near the sun will make them appear to be in a different position from their true position. When that observation was finally made possible, if the stars did not appear to be in the wrong position, that would have "falsified" Einstein's theory. In fact, the theory, at least for that prediction was proved correct. So falsifiability is actually a way to prove something is true, not false.

Here is how to think about it. If there is a test that will definitely prove something is false, if it is false, and that test performed and fails to prove it false, then it must be true. There may be few tests in science that are that definite, but the point that science does not try to "disprove" or "falsify" anything should be clear.

I do not think you intend to deceive anyone about this, and am sure you really believe what you are saying, but please do not continue to misrepresent the concept of falsifiability.

Hank

1,047 posted on 06/28/2009 8:31:14 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1032 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl
Oh I'm SO glad you got it so quickly, dearest sister in Christ! I'm on chapter 9 of 11. It has been such a marvelous read so far! I hope you'll enjoy it — and you being so strongly mathematically inclined, I rather suspect you will!

Indeed, as you say the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics" is like God's copyright notice on the Universe!

I can't wait to hear what you think of it....

1,048 posted on 06/28/2009 8:32:15 AM PDT by betty boop (Tyranny is always whimsical. — Mark Steyn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1022 | View Replies]

To: hosepipe; betty boop; allmendream
An organic machine can exist and mask as life.. but is and was not life at all... the package is not the contents.. But merely the packageing.. of Life..

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear brother in Christ!

Here again, I shall present my understanding of the matter which is rooted in Judeo/Christian theology and relates well to Information Theory and Molecular Biology. Scripture and Jewish tradition speak of the soul/spirit in four levels:

1. nephesh – the will to live, the animal soul, or the soul of all living things (Genesis 1:20) which by Jewish tradition returns to the “earth” after death. In Romans 8, this is seen as a whole, the creation longing for the children of God to be revealed. This is what betty boop and I have often described here as being field-like because it exists in all points of space/time.

2. ruach - the self-will or free will peculiar to man (abstraction, anticipation, intention, etc.) – by Jewish tradition, the pivot wherein a man decides to be Godly minded or earthy minded (also related to Romans 8, choosing)

3. neshama - the breath of God given to Adam (Genesis 2:7) which may also be seen as the “ears to hear” (John 10) - a sense of belonging beyond space/time, a predisposition to seek God and seek answers to the deep questions such as “what is the meaning of life?"

4. ruach Elohim - the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:2) which indwells Christians (I Cor 2, John 3) – the presently existing in the “beyond” while still in the flesh. (Col 3:3) This is the life in passage : "In him was life, and the life was the light of men..." (John 1)

I suspect only the first two on the list would be manifest in such a way that science might be able to detect them - the last two are specially given gifts of God.

The first, the nephesh is the “will to live” which permeates the entire biosphere and perhaps the entire universe. It can be observed in plants and animals, in creatures which go into dormant phases of their life cycle and in the simplest of life forms (e.g. cell intelligence)

It is also observed in collectives of organisms which act as if one mind – swarm intelligence (ants, bees, etc.). The “will to live” also permeates throughout the molecular machinery of higher organisms. For instance, if a part of the heart dies (myocardial infarction) – the molecular machinery will continue to struggle to survive, routing blood flow around the dead tissue. A person can be “brain dead” and yet the rest of the body will struggle to survive and will succeed if a machine (respirator) is used to simulate the cyclic instruction of the brain. Plant life will overtake most structures and acreage if not continually maintained.

The second, the ruach is what we also might call consciousness or mind and is the subject of ongoing inter-disciplinary studies.

Those who believe in strong determinism – or even strong predestination – would consider the mind to be an epiphenomen, a secondary phenomenon which cannot cause anything to happen. These would believe that everything is unfolding involuntarily – on the one hand by physical laws and constants (the physical brain caused you to press the “post” button, the mind is an illusion) – and on the other, according to God’s will from the beginning (free will is an illusion.)

IMHO, one of the strong evidences against either of these is qualia, the properties of sensory experiences that are epistemically unknowable in the absence of direct experience of them and therefore are also incommunicable – things such as likes, dislikes, pain, pleasure, love, hate, good, evil. IOW, if the mind were actually just an epiphenomenon then “pain” would be programmable. But AFAIK, artificial intelligence cannot spontaneously experience an incommunicable, epistemically unknowable, phenomenon.

And again, using successful communication (Shannon, information) as the definition of life, the definition applies at all levels in the hierarchy.

1,049 posted on 06/28/2009 8:33:36 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1040 | View Replies]

To: betty boop

[[Please define “independent thought.” Then explain why I don’t have it.]]

I’ve dealth with Miss Tickly before- ‘independent thought’ is any htought that doesn’t agree with the bible or with the church apaprently- it’s apparently ‘freeing’ to be rid of icky htings liek the universal morality laws of hte bible, and it’s apparnetly not an exclusive church thing for ‘morality’ to exist (of course those hwo reject God are talking of subjective morality when they tout how life without God can include ‘morality’ because people are essentially ‘good’ on their own- but of course we all know how ‘good’ subjective morlaity really is)


1,050 posted on 06/28/2009 8:35:52 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1045 | View Replies]

To: betty boop
Very soon I'll be grabbing a nice cup of coffee and a comfortable place to dig right into it! Just from scanning the table of contents and a few pages, I'm sure I'll love it!

Thank you again, dearest sister in Christ!!!

1,051 posted on 06/28/2009 8:36:21 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1048 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

[[I’m fairly certain this is the same guy whose theory we’ve previously reviewed and (as I recall) was dubbed “the kid” at DarwinCentral.]]

Are you speakign of Dakota? If so, do you recall what you concluded abotu his hteories? I think there is a connection between what he theorizes, and with what BB (or was it you?) said abotu light (or was it sound- lol- my mind is shot htis am) beign able transport the message- but I haven’t quite made hte connection yet between the two lines of htought.


1,052 posted on 06/28/2009 8:38:20 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1030 | View Replies]

To: betty boop; LeGrande; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; TXnMA; allmendream; hosepipe; metmom

“Boiling it all down, where do we humans get the universal idea of Truth from in the first place...”

What do you mean by truth?

Just curious because you seem to use it to mean something other than an attribute pertaining to statements. Where do we humans get the universal idea of heat. Isn’t it simply the attribute of all hot things? Isn’t truth simply the attribute of all true statements?

Hank


1,053 posted on 06/28/2009 9:11:25 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1013 | View Replies]

To: CottShop; betty boop
It's been quite awhile since I last read the paper but as I recall the author - who was young and whose education so far was not in physics (evidently earning him the nickname "the kid") - speculated that sound (pressure waves) gave rise to light (photons.)

Also, as I recall, his paper was thick on theology and thin on science.

My interest was due to this observed correlation between light and sound, which betty boop and I cite in our book Timothy:

“The MAXIMA, BOOMERANG, and DASI collaborations, which measure minute variations in the CMB [cosmic microwave background radiation], recently reported new results at the American Physical Society meeting in Washington, D.C. All three agree remarkably about what the ‘harmonic proportions’ of the cosmos imply: not only is the universe flat, but its structure is definitely due to inflation, not to topological defects in the early universe.

“The results were presented as plots of slight temperature variations in the CMB that graph sound waves in the dense early universe. These high-resolution ‘power spectra’ show not only a strong primary resonance but are consistent with two additional harmonics, or peaks.

“The peaks indicate harmonics in the sound waves that filled the early, dense universe. Until some 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the universe was so hot that matter and radiation were entangled in a kind of soup in which sound waves (pressure waves) could vibrate. The CMB is a relic of the moment when the universe had cooled enough so that photons could “decouple” from electrons, protons, and neutrons; then atoms formed and light went on its way.”

Paul Preuss, “The Universe May Be Flat But It Is Nevertheless Musical,” Science Beat, Berkeley Lab (June 5, 2001); read it at http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/cmb-harmonics.html

After reading his paper, it was apparent to me that he had a long way to go before his speculation could be taken as a hypothesis or theory.

And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. - Genesis 1:3


1,054 posted on 06/28/2009 9:15:08 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1052 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl

[[It’s been quite awhile since I last read the paper but as I recall the author - who was young and whose education so far was not in physics (evidently earning him the nickname “the kid”) - speculated that sound (pressure waves) gave rise to light (photons.)]]

Yep- that was him- His work does have soem hteory- but it’s also backed up by experiments by prominent scientists in the lab- creating light using high pressure sound-

[[After reading his paper, it was apparent to me that he had a long way to go before his speculation could be taken as a hypothesis or theory.]]

I dunno- I’ve seen ‘theories’ of other sciwentists that are based on much less than Dakota presents


1,055 posted on 06/28/2009 9:25:53 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1054 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Einstein's theory. In fact, the theory, at least for that prediction was proved correct. So falsifiability is actually a way to prove something is true, not false.

No, falsification didn't prove Einsteins theory. It simply failed to disprove it.

Let me put it another way. Say that I have a theory that all swans are white. This is a testable (falsifiable) theory. I then survey all the swans in North America and all are white, the prediction was correct. Ditto for Europe and Africa. Have I proven the theory? No Can I prove the theory? No

It so happens that there are black swans in Australia, but that doesn't really matter, all that knowledge can do is falsify the theory. The best I can hope for with the theory is that it doesn't get falsified.

1,056 posted on 06/28/2009 9:49:36 AM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1047 | View Replies]

To: LeGrande

“Let me put it another way. Say that I have a theory that all swans are white. This is a testable (falsifiable) theory.”

Please do not insult me with this academic sophistry. That is exactly what an unscientific (unfalsifiable) hypothesis is. It’s what has become wrong with all science. Real science is cannot be done by surveys, just because it is never possible to know you’ve surveyed everything. It is exactly this kind of nonsens Popper was trying to prevent.

Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?

I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?

I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?

Another unprovable theory I have is that people can be made to feel no pain while being operated on.

You stick with your post-modernist academic rejection of all knowledge and I’ll stick with reality.

Hank


1,057 posted on 06/28/2009 10:13:02 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1056 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief; betty boop; LeGrande; Alamo-Girl; CottShop; TXnMA; allmendream; hosepipe; metmom
What do you mean by truth?

A complete understanding of reality.

1,058 posted on 06/28/2009 1:18:03 PM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1053 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Lets take Newton's law of Gravity, F = G x M1 x M2/R^2. According to you, every time I drop a ball that is 'proving' Newton's law. Therefore Newton's law is proved, it is an inviolable law of the universe, is that correct?

If that isn't correct, then explain why not? Proof is a very high bar to pass, isn't it.

Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?

Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism? Please do a little research and you will find that your theory is not correct in all cases. Falsified.

I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?

As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.

I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?

Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?

1,059 posted on 06/28/2009 1:55:15 PM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]

To: Hank Kerchief
Lets take Newton's law of Gravity, F = G x M1 x M2/R^2. According to you, every time I drop a ball that is 'proving' Newton's law. Therefore Newton's law is proved, it is an inviolable law of the universe, is that correct?

If that isn't correct, then explain why not? Proof is a very high bar to pass, isn't it.

Here I have a theory. Weakened infectious organisms can be injected into a person and it will make them immune to the disease the organism causes. Of course it can never be proved, right?

Are you claiming that in all cases, injections with a weakened infectious organism will make them immune to that organism? Please do a little research and you will find that your theory is not correct in all cases. Falsified.

I have another theory. It is possible for humans to fly in machines that are heavier than air. Can’t be proved though, right?

As a pilot I happen to know that an airplane must constantly displace its weight in air, in straight and level flight. If the plane doesn't displace its weight in air (becoming heavier than the air it displaces) it is no longer capable of sustained flight. Hence I have falsified your theory.

I have another. One day men will be able to fly to the moon and back. Of course science cannot prove that?

Do you know the difference between and observation and a theory? Obviously not. Do you even understand the definition of a theory?

1,060 posted on 06/28/2009 1:55:15 PM PDT by LeGrande (I once heard a smart man say that you canÂ’t reason someone out of something that they didnÂ’t reaso)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1057 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,021-1,0401,041-1,0601,061-1,080 ... 1,281-1,292 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson