This is the fourth in our series of posts about types of predictions. God hates lies. Lies are an abomination to God. Lies oppose God. Sometimes, ungodly thinkers commit fallacies of prediction to oppose God. This quote explains one level of prediction. Some levels of prediction are helpful. Others are deceptive. Speaking about predictions without pointing out the difference between various levels of prediction is deceptive. It’s an equivocation fallacy and a package deal fallacy. You can look those up in The Encyclopedia of Logical Fallacies free for download from RealReality.org. Some of the lies surrounding evolutionism are complex. People repeat them and think they’re true without ever thinking seriously about them. They throw critical thinking out the window.
<quote from Real Faith & Reason, vol 2>
Level-3 Predictions:
Level-three predictions are practical applications using a theory to predict. Predictions don’t come from the theory directly, but we receive the predictions. They can come from divine revelation. God can’t lie. He tells us the truth. Predictions can come from the deceitful and wicked human mind, or demonic entities that lie and destroy. If we seek Christ, we’ll find Him. He’ll give us discernment if we persist. We can ask Him any question. As we mature spiritually, our discernment also improves.
Examples:
Scientists design theories based on observations. So, the theories fit the observations but go beyond observation. Where did these scientists get information beyond what anyone has seen or experienced? God may have given Albert Einstein divine revelation when working on the Quantum Theory. He was a man who confessed that he wanted to know God’s mind. We can’t know the Quantum Theory is true. We can’t be certain, but we can use Quantum Theory to predict.
Sandy Sandbuilder: The development of advanced microchips uses the predictions of Quantum Theory. You deny the computer and your cell phone if you say theories don’t lead to knowledge.
Rocky Rockbuilder: God may give a man like Einstein an insight into something like Quantum Mechanics, and this insight can lead to a theory. The theory may contain some truth and some fiction in it, but it works. It can change if something it predicts doesn’t work. However, you’re trying to make Quantum Mechanics something it isn’t. Cell phone and computer manufacturers don’t just build a production facility based on the theory. They try many ideas in the lab before putting those ideas into production. If it were as predictable as you claim, scientists wouldn’t have tested or tinkered to get these to work. They would have just built the most advanced cell phone possible the first time. And there would have been no risk or chance of losing money on a failed idea.
Those who build on sand confuse the issue. Bringing up Quantum Theory confuses issues even better than bringing up theories about the Second Law of Thermodynamics. So let’s clear the fog. Quantum Theory didn’t cause knowledge to pop into existence. If the theory contains truth, that truth came from Jesus Christ.
John Matson wrote an article titled What is Quantum Mechanics Good for? and published in Scientific American. In that article, he said the following:
Without quantum mechanics, there would be no transistor, and hence no personal computer; no laser, and hence no Blu-ray players.
Matson used the term “quantum mechanics” rather than saying “the Quantum Theory.” The observations of quantum mechanics and the theories about the observations are two very different things.
Whatever is happening in what we call “quantum mechanics” is what makes these inventions work, but it doesn’t answer this question. Did the inventors make technology by following the predictions of quantum mechanics, or did the technology come about by some other means? That’s a hard question to answer, but it misses the point anyway. Here’s the point. We might predict something. That’s not the same as knowing the truth. We haven’t proved the cause. We have a working model. We have a way of thinking about it. We can use that working model to help us find solutions. We know our model works. We don’t know our model is real. It’s practical. It’s pragmatic. And any truth that may exist in Quantum Theory came from Jesus Christ whether ungodly thinkers want to give Him the glory or not. If we can use a framework of thinking to predict how things will work, we have a pragmatic crutch at best.
Going back to Sandy’s claim, another problem exists. Sandy was arguing in favor of the Theory of Evolution. Sandy’s problem is a complex lie. Sandy’s problem has several parts. Sandy implied someone used the predictions of the theory of quantum mechanics to create the technology. Sandy didn’t say it. Sandy implied someone used the theory to create cell phones and computers. We’ve already answered that suggestion.
Besides, Sandy combined two issues into a single issue. Creating a theory about what’s happening in the present is one thing. Creating a theory about what supposedly happened in the past is quite another thing. We can’t use the same methods to test the predictions of these different kinds of theories. Sandy uses a different definition of the word “test” in each case. Here’s another fatal problem. The stories don’t predict. Stories about billions of years don’t predict. Stories about molecules coming to life don’t predict. Sandy is lying when he implies they predict. We never use these stories to create working technology. We can’t use stories about molecules turning into people over billions of years to create technology.
Quantum Theory could be useful. However, the theory wasn’t the tool that developed the transistor. Rather, scientists observed an unexpected behavior in crystals. They were trying to develop a faster switch. They invented the transistor, which was a faster switch. Quantum Theory is a possible explanation of the strange behavior, but it didn’t lead to the invention. Here’s the kicker. If scientists had used Quantum Theory to develop transistors and solid-state technology, that wouldn’t prove Quantum Theory. Nor would it help the stories of evolutionism.
Even if we can use a theory to predict what might happen under certain conditions, that doesn’t prove the theory is true. It proves we can use the theory to make predictions in areas where scientists have observed and tested those predictions. Who knows? We may find other predictions that turn out to work where the theory acts as a stimulus. Theories always go beyond scientists’ experiments and testing. They try to guess why and how the observations came to be.
We don’t call a theory “a fact.” Here’s why. We can’t test the why and how. We can directly test facts. We observe facts. We see facts. We can’t see why and how. We can use the theory because it predicts. We can take action based on the prediction. And we can test the results of that action. For example, we can test computer chips in the present. They work or they don’t work. However, we can’t test stories about big bangs, billions of years, or molecules coming to life and morphing into all the living organisms we now observe. Some say predictions test the stories. Predictions don’t test the stories. If we try to test stories with predictions, we commit the fallacy of affirming the consequent.
<end quote>
#RealFaith&Reason
Have you read this FREE book yet? “Real Faith & Reason” gives the absolutely certain proof of the Bible and the God of the Bible and shows how you can have real faith. This is faith that changes situations and transfigures you from glory to glory.
You can get your FREE copy of Real Faith & Reason, which shows the intersection of faith, reason, truth, and sanity.
http://RealReality.org/Real_Faith_and_Reason_Vol_2_-_Scientia.pdf
Follow on
https://mewe.com/i/petrosscientia
https://usa.life/PetrosScientia
https://parler.com/profile/Petros542287384712/posts
https://www.facebook.com/knowingrealreality
