Sir Isaac Newton

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by sscully, Jul 31, 2014.

  1. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    First of all, it was not unusual for prophets to prophesy events far in the future, if that is what they were called to do. Isaiah speaks of the coming of Christ 700 years prior, naming the town and manner of his birth.

    Having said that, you're right though. It makes no sense to try to apply a prophesy to events that happen long after they could be a concern of the those hearing the prophecy. What would they care? (In the instance I mention above, obviously the Jews would have an interest in where and when their messiah was to arrive).

    Similarly, yet admittedly slightly off-topic (although it has much in common with the theme of Daniel), The Book of Revelation is certainly long past it's expiration date. The mysterious symbology makes no sense to any one today. Those who claim differently are charlatans. However, in the author, John of Patmos' time, just about any one would have followed it with complete clarity. The revelations in Revelation are not for us. What would be the point of warning about something 2,000 years or more before it is to occur? Revelation was written to the churches of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea. And no, not Philadelphia, PA or Smyrna, Tennessee, or even Georgia!
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    It's a possibility.

    I can see why some people around here had you pegged as a 'fundy'. You seem to focus your attention exclusively on the Bible and you share fundamentalist Protestantism's disdain for church tradition (particularly Catholic tradition). You place tremendous emphasis on supposed Biblical prophecy (in the foretelling future events sense).

    But your underlying theology certainly appears to be radically different from that of traditional Protestantism. It's kind of an imaginative elaboration on the western esoteric tradition (hermeticism, alchemy...) all poured back into the ostensibly Biblical bottle.

    There's nothing new in that. It has a long and interesting history in western thought. Many people throughout history, from late antiquity down to today, have tried to reinterpret Christianity in more occult terms. The project was very popular in Renaissance times. There were all kinds of attempts to find hidden symbolism and numerological codes in the Biblical text, containing hidden esoteric knowledge supposedly too spiritually advanced for the common person.

    I'm still not entirely convinced that was what Newton was doing though.

    Good luck getting it published. (My guess is that your chances with 'Science' are about zero.) You might have more luck getting it into print (or at least published online) if you aimed lower.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. sscully Registered Member

    I know it sounds crazy, but its just something I haven't dismissed. Glad to see you don't dismiss offhandedly as well! Notice the first listed translation of the Emerald Tablet of hermetic teachings. Newton was most definitely interested enough in hermeticism to have taken the time to translate it on his own. While not proof that he felt it was indeed a link, it shows he had the knowledge to possibly think that.

    Also, I find evidence to support my claims in the Quran and in hadiths. I am not limiting myself to the Bible, I just think that the Bible and the Quran and all religious texts were written by or about people who had hermetic understandings of God. I find the mathematical aspect of the Quran with respect to the number 19 to be veryyyy interesting, for example.

    Ha thanks, yeah they rejected me within 24 hours; how dare I include philosophy in a science paper!?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Onto the next one. I didn't really want to publish with them anyway since they don't believe in Natural Philosophy, but if they did publish it would have been much easier for me so I figured I'd give it a shot, ha.

    Any knowledge on philosophy journals with science involved? I really wanted to publish with Philosophical Magazine but they felt it was not within the scope of articles that they publish. Need to do some research and figure out who a philosophical science article dealing with cosmology is best suited for, or just publish online and start spam promoting the link to astrophysicists....I don't really care what means is used to get my work out, journal is just preferable because it has that peer review step which scientists regard as their holy word.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Flame much? Or can you simply not respond to facts I have placed in evidence without perverting my words and then turning them into nonsensical strawmen?

    Or are you asking the mods to ban you for trolling?

    To clarify what you have attempted to muddle, since it's you who evidently has not read Principia for content, I will add to my running list of planks:

    (4) Newton did not explain his relevant body of Principia through references to God, but through mathematical proofs and derivations.
    (4a) Newton's presentation of his three laws of motions relies on math and physics, not God.
    (4b) Newton's presentation of his Universal Law of Gravitation relies on math and physics, not God.
    (4c) The first edition, containing (4a) and (4b), was published in 1687.
    (4d) The "Scholium", an appendix on Newton's personal opinions and rambling religious ideas, was added 26 years later, after (4a) and (4b) had already made Newton famous.
    (4e) The Scholium did not amend (4a) or (4b)

    In the future, refer to my planks by number with your rebuttal. If you question any other thing I have posted, say so, and I will add it to the enumerated list, which now has nearly 20 facts on display which defeat the claims you and sscully have been posting.

    If you intend to label me as a liar then you need to put up, issue a retraction, or face a ban for flaming. Stop twisting my actual statements, and stop being a turd. Speak to the issues and there will be no need for manufacturing ad homs. The planks I posted still stand unrebutted by you or anyone else. I clearly labeled them under numbered headings for your convenience. But of course you have nothing substantive to rebut them with, do you, so you decided to try ad homs, since I've raised the bar on you and you simply can't hop over it.

    My approx 20 facts opposing you still stand uncontested by any evidence to the contrary.

    And your point is . . . ? :shrug:
  8. sscully Registered Member

    Lawl. They just ignore the claims, in no way do they "defeat" them.
  9. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    My point is that you are off-topic and making wild accusations against the OP. He is not particularly interested in Christianity. Like in post #123 he says:
    Sscully propounds his own theories about cosmology and the philosopher's stone and Gosh knows what. I don't pretend to understand, but I have gathered it has something to do with misinterpreting red shifts. The real science guys mostly think he's nuts, but some of them have admitted he might be on to something. Yet Sscully himself tells us Science rejected his paper within 24 hours of its submission.

    If I recall, you said I was a liar when I said I thought sscully wasn't one of your 'Fundies' who you seem tho think live under your bed and are ruining your favorite forum (It's my favorite too

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    My larger point is that I weary of your reverse witch-hunt - this constant Spanish Inquisition-like thing you've got going, your obsession with seeking out and attaching all things religious, labeling them 'Fundy' and decrying like Popeye that you can't stands it no more! (toot toot).

    Dude, there are no creationists nor hard core Christians on SciForum who want to subvert reason and are plotting to turn SciForum into a bastion of creationism. It's all in you pretty little head!

    If you had been paying attention to the actual topic, you'd know that this thread has pretty much played itself out. Sscully has said his piece, and the real scientists have said theirs. Mostly every one was civil and acted like grown-up gentlemen. They talked about science and philosophy a little and agreed to disagree- or disagreed to agree (This second phrase being a redundancy, but making more sense than the former hackneyed expression). I'm afraid you'll have to continue your witch hunt elsewhere.

    Um. I'm an idiot for telling you this, but mostly sscully has transferred the discussion of his ideas over to his 'Theory of Everything thread, here.

    Unfortunately, you won't find me there because I am not well trained in whatever the hell it is there talking about and have absented myself from the discussion. I was only involved in this one because somehow I thought I should defend the new guy against this whole OCD thing of yours. No one expects the Aqueous Idquistion! No one!

    So goodbye for now, my friend. May be next time you completely misunderstand someone and start calling them "duplicitous, triplicitious" liars out to subvert the verdict of the Scopes trial, we'll meet again, but I pray to my God whom just one of us adores, that we do not.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    No Arne, it's you and sscully that are insidiously trying to discredit science.
    And in the main this is a science forum, and the likes of you, chinglu, and sscully, are rather fortunate that James the Administrator lets these other discussions take place. And people like sscully and chinglu grab that with glee to their own advantage.
    Other forums that have an Alternative section, give alternative pushers one month to offer evidence to either invalidate the Incumbent model, or support their own model. They must also answer all questions asked of them satisfactorally. If that doesn't happen, the thread is closed.
    sscully has offered nothing with his claims, other than handwaving nonsense, and claims it could also apply to his own model. So in effect on this other forum, he would be done and dusted by now, as would that other chinglu character that claims SR/GR are wrong.

    I wonder how I would fare if I went into a church next week, preaching Abiogenesis.
    sscully has been given a fair go, but his continued lying and claiming to have a ToE and that the stupidity and incalcitrance of mainstream science he also preaches, has lost most people.

    How do I know he is lying about having a valid ToE?
    Because we already have three others on this forum [or is it four] also claiming to have ToE's.
    Because in reality any scientific paper, especially one with a ToE, takes oodles of time....yet our friend sscully is here early morning, all day and half the night.....
    Because I truly believe any one that supposedly has something, that could potentially change 21st century physics and cosmology, would not be here or on any other forum.....
    Because what he has revealed of his alternative stuff here, is not properly supported by any evidence and is just plain ridiculious in other parts.
    And fourthly, the most obvious one, he is burdened by an insatiable belief in a deity to whom he must crusade for with his evangelistic nonsense to save us non believers.
    They are five reasons why sscully does not have a ToE......other then the five on each feet.

    And finally may I add, that I also believe it is the duty of AiD and other reputable posters, to refute his non scientific pseudocrap for all they are worth and to the best of their ability.
    And in that as a layman, and one who appreciates where science has taken us, despite the ravages of religion, I will also support that when needed and to the best of my limited ability.
  11. sscully Registered Member

    Let's discredit all future theories then.

    Yep, I am working on my research and trying to enlighten others in the process. I must be wrong!

    Must be wrong then! It's the 21st century, I'm 29, I use the internet. Welcome to life.

    Notice how this is #4. It's important that this is so low. You obviously made absolutely no effort at any step of the way to even bother to consider my evidence, so please don't pretend to know anything about my evidence. Ignorance is fine, but do not lie to better your position. Thanks.

    Is it that hard to believe that a theory of everything may open the door to a theory of EVERYTHING (God included)?

    Not a single one of you have given a shred of SCIENTIFIC argument beyond IT CANT BE SO BECAUSE I KNOW STUFF. Pointing to INTERPRETATIONS based on ASSUMPTIONS is not a SCIENTIFIC argument.
  12. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Please show me exactly where he has done this. I just don't see it.

    That doesn't even make any sense! Would you go to your grandma's quilting bee and 'preach" (I think you mean 'lecture') the members on abiogenesis? Church services are not about lectures or even preaching. There's a lot more to them than that, but I doubt you'd be interested. If you are, ask your sweet, Christian wife, she'll explain it to you.

    There's much i could say here. Just know that your side too speaks of that which it does not understand. What you think of as ignorance is something larger than you can imagine. What you think of as your opposition, an enemy that has come to subvert your knowledge and ideals is nothing of the sort. It's sort of like you got a football team of a dozen good guys who you know can beat any other team, but we show up at the stadium with a, a, a solar system - not to oppose you, but to encompass you without even realizing you are there to play.

    I don't know what chinglu or sscully are up to, but religious faith does not play by your rules of objectivity and experimentation. It is not something you can ban from your little cyber-forum because you think it's irrational and counter-productive.

    I'm just saying...
  13. sscully Registered Member

    It's ok Arne, I will most definitely get the last word in this discussion soon enough, and their torments of not-knowing will be finally withdrawn. Thanks for being sane ;-D
  14. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Enumerate your claims as I have done with my facts, and let's see how your opinion compares to the facts. Put your money where your mouth is.
  15. sscully Registered Member

    I'm gonna go ahead and stop now. You win. Enjoy your glory while it lasts, love.
  16. river

    I agree , sscully

    But when will the religious , get into the ancient History , of religion ? Is my question to you

    When say ancient history , I mean at least , minimum , 6,000yrs and much further back , really

  17. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    No way, sugar bun. You opened this can of worms, so let's finish it. Let's expose it for the pile of crap that it is.

    All you've done thus far is pontificate, snipe, and then retreat behind the skirts of Arne when confronted to prove something. You really should be banned. You make bogus childlike claims, straight from the Creation Science playbook, then dodge as soon as rebuttal engages you. And whatever Arne is up to looks like sock puppetry. His recent attempt to distance you from fundamentalism, after you have made a number of preachy fundamentalist-style remarks, is the kind of horseplay we see from cranks that bring in their own sock puppets to erect a pretense of support for the most moronic of machinations, such as you have constructed here.

    By the way, since Islam evolved (in part) from the religion and angst of banished Christians (Nestorians) you need to look there first before assuming that they were cabalists (as first detected by the ever-attentive CC in her more relevant remark that Newton's rant could ostensibly demonstrate familiarity with the Kabbalah). But perish the thought that I would suggest you should do your homework, since you are obviously in that special class that can't be expected to tote around a high school level of competency, despite your affinity for the most most advanced topics of physics (science of the Sun, and esp. your nonsensical "Theory of Everything" which is a study in pseudoscience and the glorification of ignorance). Yet lost in this discussion is the deeper discussion of the mysticism of Islam, Egyptian Jews and Christians alike, the role of hermeticism, Gnosticism and known cults like Rosicrucians and sects of the Knights Templar and all of the occult leading to cults of Satanism itself. Also consider the Copts, Ethopian, Syrian and Turkic, Greek and Russian cults and this leads naturally to the fringes of Western experience, from Mithraic cults of Rome and the Orient, Zoroastrians, the earlier cults of Akkadia, Sumeria and Babylonia, leading to the many cults of the Far East, from Jains to Hindus to Buddhists and the many lost and forgotten cults of that vast cradle of civilization. Then there is all of Indonesia, Oceania, Polynesia, The Americas, Africa, the tribal and "pagan" cultures of Europe and Asia (consider the lost cults of N American cliff dwellers, the Quashqai of Iraq/Iran, the lost people of Machu Picchu, or the variegated cults of the mountainous regions beyond the Kush Valley--and still we have only made a dent. What makes Christians so arrogant to think they are so special? Indeed, this pandering to narcissism sets Christianity apart for the ugly way modern societies have marketed Christianity, as the representative cult of the Western world, when in fact it has merely produced countless cults which may have been useful to progress in the era of empires, as far as building civil obedience. (Yazata will argue "what about the art" and I will refer him to the art of Byzantium, India, China, Ancient Rome and Greece, the Etruscans, Polynesia and Africa, the Mayans, Incans and Aztecs, in fact cultures the world over.) And the answer is obvious: Christianity survived because it successfully marginalized all competition and mastered the art of mind control, to include marginalization of even those cults which were effectively Christian, but which did not meet some precise formulaic definition assembled by some arbitrarily selected committee du jour, whether it be the Nicene Council or the King James committee. What a pile of crap, not one iota more meritorious than the Moonies, the Wiccans, the Braniff Pilot's Association, Santeria, snake handlers any other attempt to exploit vulnerable minds. It's all gamesmanship, politics and pure bullshit. And we can say that because we stand in the era of self-determination, self actualization and the actual end to the Dark Ages, even though groups like the fundies never got that memo.

    As it stands, Newton is remembered for his prolific contributions to math and science, which revolutionized the world, as reflected not only in the birth of classical science, but in the prolific art, music and literature of the Classical Era. (Sorry, for a moment I was addressing an educated person. Probably someone like CC, iceaura, Yazata, and the rest of the good folks out there that bothered to open books and actually read them before the era of wikipedia . . . and a shout out to the returning adults like paddoboy, the educated millennials and the coming generation who understand the value of learning. Also I want to acknowledge all of the other intelligent posters here, some of who carry a lot of weight in my mind for their unimpeachable common sense and wisdom -- from the usu. terse remarks of gmilam and sideshowbob, to the assertive erudite voices of JamesR, rpenner, origin, Trippy, exchem, billvon, CptBork, pryzk, PhysBang, Arfabrane, Fraggle, BillyT, my pals Grumpy, Read-Only, randwulf, brucep, spidergoat and balerion and of course by no means least the enigmatic very right and left brained Trooper and the engineer's engineer -- fully synchronized with the aforementioned: where are you Russ_Watters? That's a short list of the posters I always pay attention to, all obviously not among that set I referred to as "vulnerable minds". And there are dozens of others, folks like joepistole and scheherezade and not to mention educated readers who have not yet joined. The vast majority of these, if not all, had they even wondered what you were up to, would have given you the thumbs down.)

    This thread is merely an attack on education. That's the subtext, pure and simple.

    Seriously, the premise of this thread is all horseshit. Just put on your adult britches, bozos, and stop playing games. Come out of the superstition/religion/dunce corner and sit with the adults for awhile and get real. Are you even capable of that, or is this all designed to give you the equivalent of an erection (you did identify as a male) over your twisted sense of academia, or are you a Creation Science operative, a bored blue-collar worker embroiled in some fringe group like the Adventists, or someone who actually could not function in the normal day to day competition of an average school. I mean: who the fuck are you? Drop all the pretense. Be real. Who gives a fuck? It's not like your facebook page is on display here. So let's go: give it up. Who cares? You probably have about 7 readers max, so for all practical purposes consider this group therapy. We don't care about your personal information; we simply want you to drop the facade and be halfway genuine.

    So what the hell is really going on? What has wound you up in the first place? Why all the dumbass games?


    And how much if this is stoner thoughts? Take that to a board in, say, Redding, California, or the mecca of your choice.
  18. sscully Registered Member

    Yes way.
  19. sscully Registered Member

    Wait, what now? Totally lost by what you are getting at.
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    You mean like your undisputed claim of the Sun's 22 year orbit?
    No indication at all from any of the state of the art flares are described by other means as mentioned.
    The Sun does not have any companion around which such an orbit could partake.
    And finally, you fail the scientific method, in as much as the onus of proof is on you, and your continued false claims about a ToE are just plain non believable for the reasons I have mentioned, plus the lack of adherence to the scientific method.

    I have no beef with religious faith or those that practise it.
    I do have a beef with religious practitioners that will work their insidious derision of science in whenever they can.
    I have recommended the month's leeway with alternative pushers to show cause re the legitimacy of their hypothesis.
    I for one hope it is eventually taken up.
  21. Arne Saknussemm trying to figure it all out Valued Senior Member

    Ah, 'grace' there's a concept from the right frontal lobe, or then again, it's not just a concept, and it can hardly be said to be peculiar to the human brain. See what I'm on about?
  22. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Probably agree with that exochemist.
    In retrospect it would be best to ignore them and then shift the thread to cesspool.
  23. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    You do it all the time, AI. You're kind of infamous around here for insulting ideas and people that you disagree with.

    I think that's true, so far as it goes. What isn't quite as clear are the conclusions that you are drawing from it.

    I think that it's abundantly true that Newton derived his own physical conclusions from physical arguments. He didn't introduce any explicitly theological principles directly into his chain of reasoning. So Newton's physical thought stands whatever one's religious adherence happens to be (or not be). People in China were influenced by Newton. Atheists still treat him as kind of an icon.

    Having said that, there's an argument to be made that it might not be historically accurate to suggest that Newton's theological interests were a degeneration that only appeared late in his life, after a mental breakdown or something. (I'm not sure if you were suggesting that, but some historians certainly have.)

    See this paper entitled 'The Theology of Isaac Newton's Principia Mathematica, a preliminary survey' in which the author (a Canadian historian of science) argues that Newton's private correspondence shows that Newton's peculiar theological interests were present throughout his life, even before he completed the first edition of the 'Principia'. And more controversially, the paper's author argues that the contents of the 'Principia' were indeed influenced by those theological concerns.

    Admittedly this stuff is still a matter of active controversy among historians of science and ideas. I'm just mentioning this paper in order to suggest that what seems to me to be your own take on things isn't without scholarly critics.

    At the very least, this paper provides a useful initial survey of the literature.
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2014

Share This Page