Modern scientists know neither the universal laws of nature nor the nature of anything. Do you disagree?

Liked this question? Tell your friends about it

5 Answers

Order by
Oldest to Newest
Newest to Oldest
Votes

 I dreamed last night about modern science and the universal law...

The laws of nature are about phenomena. They don't know anything about the things in themselves. The phenomena form all we know about reality, they might as well be existence-independent.

A clash of ideas is not a catastrophe, it is an opportunity. Only its constructive conclusions should be allowed to leave the academic framework.

Hello, Soundary, you pose a really deep philosophical question.  You must be a very intelligent person. I recommend that you practice very much on careful choosing the wordings of your questions.  You will never get a satisfactory answer if you don't. There is a philosophical school of thought called The Skeptics. They would say that no one can know anything absolutely.  Read Ludwig Wittgenstein!  Modern science can build "models" that describe the observable behavior of much of the cosmos.  We can predict related outcomes using these models.  In that sense, "modern science can ascertain at least a portion of the universal laws of nature."  Look at <Plato.Stanford.com>!

... and you will know the truth, and the truth shall make you free...

I will have to concur that Soundary (AKA Physicalist) knows nothing of any value.  Until you learn to work a three-place algebraic equation, you will not be of any worth whatsoever.

Even light will bend to do our bidding if we apply force correctly. The lowest servant in Heaven is still in Heaven, whoever rules in hell is still in hell, but they won't rule for long. No man stands taller than when he stoops to help a little child.

On the face of your statement, I do disagree.  Obviously, from the advances made in scientific discovery, there is much that scientists do know of the universal laws of nature.  Not too much more than a century ago, electricity had not yet been widely developed and utilized, etc.  It may be true that scientists are not all knowing -- that is, not to have the "inside" understanding of God -- but to say that man is without understanding is not correct. 

Related Questions

Other people asked questions on similar topics, check out the answers they received:

Asked: One has more than One! Could you illustrate?

One has more than One! The One in One, The One in Only One, The One to One, The One on One, The One as One, The One by One, The One for One - What do they refer? The one in one is the part of one; the ...

Asked: What did you discover about knowledge?

What did you discover about knowledge?

Asked: Ancient Indian Vedic mathematics or modern ...

Ancient Indian Vedic mathematics or modern mathematics is scientific?

Ask a Question... We'll forward it to people who know

More Questions

International Law.

Since leftists are all so stupid that they cannot pass a fifth grade exam, then what possibility could leftists have to practice law in so demanding a court as the International Court of Justice? Leftists really do have low IQ's, do they not? Lane just proved how low.

What is the law regarding having a phone in a short term rental

The property owner is responsible for providing basic livability. IE: water, sewage, electricity, locks on doors and windows, sound construction, and pest control. All single occupancy houses, and apartments must have working inset phone lines. However, a working phone is not required. If the ...

What are the workers compensation Law in new jersey?

This is an insurance that provides medical care benifits for workers who are injured in Job.

Nothing is random if the laws of nature are universal. Do you

Tolbert--Allow me to be helpful. I am neither god's creation nor am I an infant of the universe, nor do I create the random as I become aware of new things in the cosmos. If you want to trump the old try trumping the Bible. That should be easy.