Thief
Rogue Theologian
You guys are incredibly boring, this is no longer a battle of wits and reason it has now become a battle of ego and endurance...
Agreed...anyone want to go back to topic?
-
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!
Mother Nature vs. God?
- Thread starter Anonymouse
- Start date
- Status
Agreed...anyone want to go back to topic?
McBell
Unbound
:biglaugh:
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Thief
Rogue Theologian
We've had this discussion.
You won't accept the definition by Webster's.
Until then.......
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Ah, so that's the problem.
Webster's colloquial definition of the word "theory" in your standard dictionary.
From Websters more concise Medical Dictionary.
the·o·ry definition
Pronunciation: /ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthi(-ə
r-ē/ Function: n
pl -ries ; 1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena theory of organic evolution> see ATOMIC THEORY CELL THEORY GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
the·o·ret·i·cal Pronunciation: /ˌthē-ə-ˈret-i-kəl, ˌthi(ə
r-ˈet-/ also the·o·ret·ic Pronunciation: /-ik/
Function: adj
the·o·ret·i·cal·ly Pronunciation: /-i-k(ə-)lē/
Function: adv
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Or maybe the American Heritage Science Dictionary
theory
(thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē Pronunciation Key A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Or the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
theory definition
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. ( See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Now that we know what a theory is in the proper context, let's focus on the "unproven" part of your claim, shall we?
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Ah, so that's the problem.
Webster's colloquial definition of the word "theory" in your standard dictionary.
From Websters more concise Medical Dictionary.
the·o·ry definition
Pronunciation: /ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthi(-ə
Function: n
pl -ries ; 1 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art theory and practice of medicine>
2 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain natural phenomena theory of organic evolution> see ATOMIC THEORY CELL THEORY GERM THEORY
3 : a working hypothesis that is considered probable based on experimental evidence or factual or conceptual analysis and is accepted as a basis for experimentation
the·o·ret·i·cal Pronunciation: /ˌthē-ə-ˈret-i-kəl, ˌthi(ə
also the·o·ret·ic Pronunciation: /-ik/
Function: adj
the·o·ret·i·cal·ly Pronunciation: /-i-k(ə-)lē/
Function: adv
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.
Or maybe the American Heritage Science Dictionary
theory
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena. Most theories that are accepted by scientists have been repeatedly tested by experiments and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The American Heritage® Science Dictionary
Copyright © 2002. Published by Houghton Mifflin. All rights reserved.
Or the American Heritage New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy.
theory definition
In science, an explanation or model that covers a substantial group of occurrences in nature and has been confirmed by a substantial number of experiments and observations. A theory is more general and better verified than a hypothesis. ( See Big Bang theory, evolution, and relativity.)
The American Heritage® New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy, Third Edition
Copyright © 2005 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
Now that we know what a theory is in the proper context, let's focus on the "unproven" part of your claim, shall we?
Like I said.....an explanation is not 'proof'.
Wave your theory all you want.
God is behind all things.
And if it makes you feel better....
Call the existence of God a theory.
Now do you believe me?
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
And like I said, "what unproven theories"?
Atomic Theory?
Evolutionary Theory?
Circuit Theory?
Germ Theory?
The Kinetic Theory of Gas?
The Theory of Relativity?
Gravitational Theory?
All are Scientific Theories that explain a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses , objective and empirical evidence, observation, and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers.
So, what "unproven theories" were you referring to?
I'd call that your hypothesis. A poor one at that, as it cant be tested or verified.
Orias
Left Hand Path
To you maybe, or others that take the cliche label of "atheist" unto themselves.
Thats really all thats going on here, such trifles are obviously bound to attract two walls that close in on each other, leaving no room for any rationality or even purpose.
I don't remember the last time such pallet cleansing debates actually did anything practical within this realm we call our "world".
It should be all up to a simple question of common sense, if a "God" did exist, aside from that slob that the mainstream has so ignorantly raised onto a throne, do you really think he would care or take a side of such trifles?
It can easily be compared to a father who seeds two sons, One is obedient the other is resentful. No "moral" father would abandon One for the other, as both counterparts present the initiative of Self preservation, and are apart and exist because of this essential being, "God".
It has nothing to do with moral concern, or fundamental propagating, just recognition and awareness of the Self and the evolution that unfolds before your eyes.
Now, in theory, a theory should be self explainitory, since like Christianity, theories are the premises that the scientific community bases its logic off, with little regard as to what the Opposition has to offer, since it should be obvious there is strength in numbers, even if they are still falling apart before your eyes.
Just because something is widely accpeted, does not make that something so, just because something is written, does not make it so. Said Christian proponents would be a good example of this.
After all of this debate I would of figured someone would of spotted the chicken among cows, but people only accept what is comforting or conducive to the long haul, and not what the actual foundation of perception is.
Now, if I said that "God" was a chair could you still not verify this? Since if I am not mistaken a computer can be a "tower" or a "cell phone", or a "satellite".
Your argument holds no ground besides that specious bias you seem to possess of "scientific theory", which I might also add has done little to prevent any disaster our forthcoming minds can occur.
What an absolute load of bollocks! I made a simple point and all you did was dance around it without actually addressing it. Such a typical response from a "cliche" creationist.
Simple questions require simple answers in the same way that extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
A chair is a real, observable, testable thing. It cannot be compared to what religion claims "god" to be. But for arguments sake, yes, I could verify (make that falsify) that the chair is "god".
See the difference?
Simple questions require simple answers in the same way that extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence.
A chair is a real, observable, testable thing. It cannot be compared to what religion claims "god" to be. But for arguments sake, yes, I could verify (make that falsify) that the chair is "god".
See the difference?
Orias
Left Hand Path
You must be new.
Another untrue and unsupported claim.
Please, provide an example.
Then do it.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Ah, so now you will avoid me in failure to support your points.
You come with sword yet you do not know how to use it?
I can be more revealing and informative than I may appear
Q) Is the door open or closed?
A) Closed.
Q) Is the car red or green?
A) Red.
Q) Can the hypothesis that "god" created the universe be tested?
A) No
Do I really need to go on?
Ok, I just sawed the legs off a chair and set fire to the bits.
I didnt get stuck by lightning. There hasn't been a world ending earthquake or flood, and the church around the corner hasnt changed the sign out the front.
In conclusion, this experiment has shown that either the chair was not god, or that god is not required to keep the world running smoothly.
So thief... "unproven theories"????
Orias
Left Hand Path
Asinine assumptions do seem to be prevelant within you.
There is nothing that makes "God" supernatural or entity like. There is nothing to conclude that a "chair" is infact a "chair" besides the imaginative symbols and words that man gives to things.
They are misleading at the most, and can lead people to actually close the door on themselves.
The funny thing about empirical evidence is that its not supposed to rely on theory, in which so far "scientific theory" has done nothing to disprove such existences practical and not.
And to speak of faith as if you do not rely on the very words you attempt to communicate.
You represent nothing besides the thoughts within your own head, just like everyone else.
Part of continual use of the word "God" says nothing more than you acknowledge His existence, click here to gain a better understanding.
Scientists should could learn a lot from history
tumbleweed41
Resident Liberal Hippie
Ah, so nothing is "real".
End of discussion.
I'm going to go eat what my mind conceives of as a peperoni pizza.
Orias
Left Hand Path
Unfortunately, reality is subjective to the individual.
My reality does not consist of poverty or aids, I am not a holocaust survivor, and I do not presume intent, I verify it.
We sense and create words and we sense and create objects, to these objects we give names and labels, it is a two step process that ultimately concludes what we perceive as "being".
It is very real, infact its so real, that a majority of people don't believe it.
Perception is a tricky thing, especially when you expect everyone else to perceive the same way as you do, but then again, isn't that why we're all here?
Last edited:
So you consider practical assumptions asinine?
You must really struggle with day to day life.
...and Thief, still waiting for those "unproven threories".
Last edited by a moderator:
Orias
Left Hand Path
Way to direct my points, its like debating with a Christian.
Practical assumptions? Don't make me laugh, you should spend less time making these silly errors and more time actually finding out what your dealing with.
So it's impractical to assume the car is red? or the door is closed?
How asinine of me to trust what my sensory organs tell my brain!
- Status