Why are the "laws" of physics so different as conceived by many xtian fundamentalist?

[Funky_Gibbon]

If you believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent god, science is impossible. There isn't a single measurement you can make, or an experiment you can conduct, that you could isolate from god's potential interference. You can test a water sample 999999 times, but you still can't be sure, that if you test it a millionth time it won't be wine, if god wills it, for whatever reason it might have, that you are not allowed to question.

Isn't that very similar to the problem of induction? You know the one all good scientists and philosophers have been grappling with since time immemorial?

[Fireball]

If you believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent god, science is impossible. There isn't a single measurement you can make, or an experiment you can conduct, that you could isolate from god's potential interference. You can test a water sample 999999 times, but you still can't be sure, that if you test it a millionth time it won't be wine, if god wills it, for whatever reason it might have, that you are not allowed to question.

Isn't that very similar to the problem of induction? You know the one all good scientists and philosophers have been grappling with since time immemorial?

Mathematical induction hasn't been around since "time immemorial". Induction and the scientific method are used to find new information which is provisionally true to some arbitrary extent that can be demonstrated by experiment; deductive logic is more certain, but does not provide new knowledge. If you seek to disparage inductive logic, please check every piece of technology you own at the door when you come here to post. I don't generally get into these arguments due to the disingenuous nature of generic religious people. I made an exception this time because I'm tired of all the political threads. I may be too bored to view your response, though.

[Funky_Gibbon]

Isn't that very similar to the problem of induction? You know the one all good scientists and philosophers have been grappling with since time immemorial?

Mathematical induction hasn't been around since "time immemorial". Induction and the scientific method are used to find new information which is provisionally true to some arbitrary extent that can be demonstrated by experiment; deductive logic is more certain, but does not provide new knowledge. If you seek to disparage inductive logic, please check every piece of technology you own at the door when you come here to post. I don't generally get into these arguments due to the disingenuous nature of generic religious people. I made an exception this time because I'm tired of all the political threads. I may be too bored to view your response, though.

Well, firstly I'm not disparaging anything, mathematical induction has been around since at least Euclid and many great thinkers, religious and non-religious grapple with the problem "Homeless Nutter" describes. That is, if you throw a stone into the air and it comes back to earth 1 million times out of 1 million, it doesn't prove that the 1 million and 1th time you throw it it will also come back down to earth. As you say it is only provisionally true. That's how the scientific method works... Why for a theory to be respected scientifically it must be falsifiable...

I didn't expect to stir up the hive with such a pedestrian commentary...