• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
disciple said:
Go for it. You keep trying, but all you have is calling theists dishonest. I really wonder what your point is, I suspect you don't have one.
Click to expand...
Are you going to present something or not?

let me help you out.
You should start out with a claim.
Then after the claim you should present support for the claim.

Now please understand that bold empty claims, claims of belief, and wishful thinking are not considered support for a claim.

Care to give it a try?
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Sapiens said:
Now you want to read something ridiculous ... on line up.

Words have specific meanings for good reason, again, scientific theory: "A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not 'guesses' but reliable accounts of the real world."

I suspect that the religious theories that you are used to don't demand this level or rigor.

Because you call it a theory does not mean that it is a well-substantiated explanation that has been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment, now does it?
Click to expand...
"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."
"A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently."
"A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time."
What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory

Is the Big Crunch a cosmological theory?
Is the Big Freeze a cosmological theory?
What about the Big Rip? Is that a theory?
Which of these are scientific theories, and which are not?
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
Mate, you are being dishonest. It is not slander to point out a fact.

Calling a chicken a banana does not make it a banana.
Click to expand...
Only a liar would say that I have called a chicken a banana.
Are you saying that I said a chicken was a banana?
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
disciple said:
If you find the truth to be rude, that isn't my problem.
Click to expand...
What I find rude and dishonest is that you have posted several comments to me asking me to refute various claims, and then deny having asked me to refute anything a few minutes later.

I thought better of you. What you are demonstrating is not truth, it is a total disregard for honor, decency and accountability.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
Are you going to present something or not?

let me help you out.
You should start out with a claim.
Then after the claim you should present support for the claim.

Now please understand that bold empty claims, claims of belief, and wishful thinking are not considered support for a claim.

Care to give it a try?
Click to expand...
Why would I waste my time? You also have to present an alternative. It's like you don't even realize that. Any theory is better than your gigantic gaps scenario.
 
Last edited:
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
Nope. I am saying that your claim that if you call something a theory it is a theory was just silly
Click to expand...
Very well, I thought a saw something different in a previous post of yours. I won't bother checking up on it, and I'll leave it at that.

Nevertheless I have since given you something to consider in another post. You'll see it, and we'll continue our discussion, without personal attacks, is that right?
 
McBell

McBell

Admiral Obvious
disciple said:
Why would I waste my time? You don't know the subjects involved well enough to refute anything anyways. You also have to present an alternative. It's like you don't even realize that. Any theory is better than your gigantic gaps scenario.
Click to expand...
Your inability to have an unfilled gap is an issue you will have to resolve without me.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Sonofason said:
Very well, I thought a saw something different in a previous post of yours. I won't bother checking up on it, and I'll leave it at that.

Nevertheless I have since given you something to consider in another post. You'll see it, and we'll continue our discussion, without personal attacks, is that right?
Click to expand...
I would appreciate that enormously.

What would you like me to consider?
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
Your inability to have an unfilled gap is an issue you will have to resolve without me.
Click to expand...
No, see that is where you are wrong. You assume that I fill any gaps with theism just because they are gaps, but that isn't the case, and in fact it isn't 'filling the gaps with god' that I do anyway. I am presenting an idea of intelligence, intent, and or consciousness into creation, or at least keeping that option open, you are putting 'god' into this more than I am.
Clearly you don't understand my position, yet you continue to criticize, this makes no sense.
 
Sonofason

Sonofason

Well-Known Member
Bunyip said:
I would appreciate that enormously.

What would you like me to consider?
Click to expand...
"Any scientific theory must be based on a careful and rational examination of the facts. In the scientific method, there is a clear distinction between facts, which can be observed and/or measured, and theories, which are scientists’ explanations and interpretations of the facts. Scientists can have various interpretations of the outcomes of experiments and observations, but the facts, which are the cornerstone of the scientific method, do not change."
"A theory must include statements that have observational consequences. A good theory, like Newton’s theory of gravity, has unity, which means it consists of a limited number of problem-solving strategies that can be applied to a wide range of scientific circumstances. Another feature of a good theory is that it formed from a number of hypotheses that can be tested independently."
"A scientific theory is not the end result of the scientific method; theories can be proven or rejected, just like hypotheses. Theories can be improved or modified as more information is gathered so that the accuracy of the prediction becomes greater over time."
What is a Scientific Theory? | Definition of Theory

Is the Big Crunch a cosmological theory?
Is the Big Freeze a cosmological theory?
What about the Big Rip? Is that a theory?
Which of these are scientific theories, and which are not?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top