On 4/7/2012 10:36 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 07.04.2012 22:16 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/7/2012 5:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.04.2012 19:22 meekerdb said the following:
On 4/6/2012 9:26 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


“The very possibility of applied mathematics is an expression . . . of
the Christian belief that nature is the creation of an omnipotent God.”

Of course the regularity of nature is more consistent with a single god
than with many contending gods, but it is still more consistent with a

deist god who creates the world and then leaves it to itself than a
theist god who answers prayers.


I am reading now Feyerabend's The Tyranny of Science. A couple of
related quotes:

“After Newton had found his law of gravitation, he applied it to the
moon and to the planets. It seemed that Jupiter and Saturn, when
treated in this way, slowly moved away from each other – the planetary
system seemed to fall apart.”

”Newton concluded that it was being kept stable by an additional force
and he assumed that God from time to time intervened in the course of
planets. That agreed with his theological views. God, Newton believed,
was not just an abstract principle.”

More to this story


where there are results of my search in Google. The story seems to
have a happy end. Yet if Newton were a deist, then we would not have
the Newton laws.

What? You think he would have discarded his law of universal gravitation

if he had been a deist? Why wouldn't he have just concluded the solar
system was unstable and would eventually be dispersed?

"Ancient Babylonian records showed that the planetary system had been stable for a considerable time."

"At any rate, there was a clash between the facts and Newton's law of gravitation used without additional assumptions."

Actually not. Newton's gravity would have shown that it would have been sufficiently stable much longer than Babylonian times - if Newton had been able to solve the multi-body problem. It is solved numerically now using computers.

Why do you suppose the solar system has been stable enough to be predictable over millions of years? Do you think general relativity is necessary to explain that?


You may want to find Leibniz's critics of Newton.

"Leibniz ridiculed Newton's god for being an incompetent universe-maker and declared that what god does once, he does in a perfect way."




You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to