Theory....again

[littleoldme]

hmmmm....

 

[Thief]

You said: "Spirit?.....or are you going to contradict the law of motion....and say....
It just happened?"

Here are the three (3) Newton laws of motion:

From here: Newton's Three Laws of Motion

All of them talk about natural things, not supernatural, nor spiritual.

In other words, the Spirit you're talking about is Natural. No other conclusion can be made from your claims and statements unless you can provide a new and different laws of motion that exclude Nature itself from the equation.

But I know you can't.

God and heaven would be 'super'natural.

I've heard it said God can be everywhere.
That's not natural.
God was, is, and shall always be.
That's not natural.

And I think I've seen it written down somewhere...'God cannot be moved'.
But maybe that speaks of His sense of judgment.

 

[gnostic]

Theory....

rules and techniques: the body of rules, ideas, principles, and techniques that applies to a subject, especially when seen as distinct from actual practice.

speculation: abstract thought or contemplation.

idea formed by speculation: an idea of or belief about something arrived at through speculation or conjecture.

(someone asked me to have a look.....this is what I found)
(hope he is reading this)

Isn't it strange that you give several definitions, and yet you fail to supply one for scientific theory.

A) Did you overlook it?

B) Or did you not think it relevant?

C) Or you don't understand what is "scientific theory"?

D) Or was it you were biased? (And didn't supply because of your religious belief.)​

Looking, at your replies so far replies, I would say a bit of C) (because of post 5), but mostly because of D).

Let me ask you a couple of questions, to gauge what do or don't know:

1. Do you understand the difference between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis?
2. Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

Please explain the differences or supply definitions to each word (words that are colored red), hopefully in your own words. Remember we want scientific definitions, not just informal definitions, which you have already supplied in the OP.

 

[Thief]

Isn't it strange that you give several definitions, and yet you fail to supply one for scientific theory.

A) Did you overlook it?

B) Or did you not think it relevant?

C) Or you don't understand what is "scientific theory"?

D) Or was it you were biased? (And didn't supply because of your religious belief.)​

Looking, at your replies so far replies, I would say a bit of C) (because of post 5), but mostly because of D).

Let me ask you a couple of questions, to gauge what do or don't know:

1. Do you understand the difference between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis?
2. Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

Please explain the differences or supply definitions to each word (words that are colored red), hopefully in your own words. Remember we want scientific definitions, not just informal definitions, which you have already supplied in the OP.

I'm sure what you ask has been covered already.

 

[McBell]

I'm sure what you ask has been covered already.

Really?
Where did you explain the differences and or defined the red terms in your own words?

Wasn't in this thread.

 

[technomage]

I'm sure what you ask has been covered already.

The _definitions_ have been covered elsewhere. You, however, have demonstrated that you reject the mainstream definitions ... yet you consistently refuse to provide an explanation of how you use the words.

Until you provide that explanation, your use of the words are (literally) meaningless--as you use them, they are semantically null verbiage.

 

[Thief]

The _definitions_ have been covered elsewhere. You, however, have demonstrated that you reject the mainstream definitions ... yet you consistently refuse to provide an explanation of how you use the words.

Until you provide that explanation, your use of the words are (literally) meaningless--as you use them, they are semantically null verbiage.

Are you (and some others) wanting to impose experiment where none can be applied?

I thought that argument was covered.

 

[Ouroboros]

God and heaven would be 'super'natural.

I've heard it said God can be everywhere.
That's not natural.
God was, is, and shall always be.
That's not natural.

And I think I've seen it written down somewhere...'God cannot be moved'.
But maybe that speaks of His sense of judgment.

You suggested that the "Laws of Motion" (which is Newton's Laws of Motion) points to God. That means the formulas and equations in the three Laws of Motion contains God/Spirit/Supernatural.

Now, provide insight into which terms in the Laws of Motion that represents God/Spirit. I've asked you three or four times now, and you still are doing your best avoiding to answer.

The forces referenced in the laws are physical, natural, worldly, here in this world forces, so I guess what you're saying is that God is physical, natural, and part of this world, i.e. naturalistic pantheism. Is that what you are, a naturalistic pantheist?

 

[Ouroboros]

Are you (and some others) wanting to impose experiment where none can be applied?

Then don't argue that God can be shown by using science. Don't use science or philosophy to argue God. Science and philosophy are methods with which we experiment (through physical or thought--yes, thought experiment is a philosophical term) and conclude things about this natural world. To use those methods to "impose experiment" to show God is exactly what you're trying to do with the "spirit first" blabber.

You don't prove God. You just know what God is without argument. If you have to argue God and God's existence, then it's not God.

I thought that argument was covered.

Obviously not since you keep on hammering the same argument without backing it up or realizing that it doesn't prove God but rather diminish God.

If you deduce God, you have in effect reduced God.

 

[littleoldme]

when definitions are subjective... the object in question is meaningless...
what is so special about holding on to an idea that is experienced in different ways?

scientific theory is defining a phenomenon by what we objectively can observe...
apparently this bothers those who value wishful thinking over objective evidence.

 

[gnostic]

I'm sure what you ask has been covered already.

Certainly not by you.

All I have seen so from you is that you refuse to answer direct questions and fallen back on your old bad habit of unsubstantiated motto - "spirit, first". You are like a broken record, repeating this "spirit before substance" without providing any evidence to support your wishful thinking.

You have been sidestepping questions, has only irk most people here and no one has been impressed.

Again, could you answer my questions , in your own word, either providing definitions for the red words (scientific hypothesis & scientific theory, proof & evidence), or explain the differences.

 

[littleoldme]

Certainly not by you.

All I have seen so from you is that you refuse to answer direct questions and fallen back on your old bad habit of unsubstantiated motto - "spirit, first". You are like a broken record, repeating this "spirit before substance" without providing any evidence to support your wishful thinking.

You have been sidestepping questions, has only irk most people here and no one has been impressed.

Again, could you answer my questions , in your own word, either providing definitions for the red words (scientific hypothesis & scientific theory, proof & evidence), or explain the differences.

i have a feeling i shouldn't hold my breath for cohesive and rational answer from your "buddy"

 

[gnostic]

Even in grade school my academics were ranked as superior.
(nation wide comparison test)

You have not demonstrate any superiority so far. And certainly not in the scientific realms.

I don't have a problem with science.

That's good to know, but do you understand the very basic scientific techniques of gathering information, hence scientific method, of validating or refuting hypothesis through prediction and observation (which would include evidence, testing, experiment), and how hypothesis become scientific theory.

If you don't understand all of the above, not just their definitions, but how they are used, then you don't have any appreciation of science.

 

[Thief]

You have not demonstrate any superior so far. And certainly not in the scientific realms.



That's good to know, but do you understand the very basic scientific techniques of gathering information, hence scientific method, of validating or refuting hypothesis through prediction and observation (which would include evidence, testing, experiment), and how hypothesis become scientific theory.

If you don't understand all of the above, not just their definitions, but how they are used, then you don't have any appreciation of science.

So you're not able (or willing) to see.....
Theory is all fine and good if you can proceed to the experiment and produce results that would THEN allow for the declaration of 'proof'.

And where Spirit first is reasonable (I think so).....
you are not willing to accept that reasoning.

There will be no experiment.

 

[gnostic]

i have a feeling i shouldn't hold my breath for cohesive and rational answer from your "buddy"

Yeah, from my experiences with him, you got that right.

As can be seen in his latest post to me, he still not answering the questions.

So you're not able (or willing) to see.....
Theory is all fine and good if you can proceed to the experiment and produce results that would THEN allow for the declaration of 'proof'.

And where Spirit first is reasonable (I think so).....
you are not willing to accept that reasoning.

There will be no experiment.

He's still being evasive.

 

[littleoldme]

Yeah, from my experiences with him, you got that right.

As can be seen in his latest post to me, he still not answering the questions.



He's still being evasive.

how is it that such a hostile member is allowed to be on this forum...

perhaps ignoring him will do the trick...

 

[gnostic]

So you're not able (or willing) to see.....
Theory is all fine and good if you can proceed to the experiment and produce results that would THEN allow for the declaration of 'proof'.

And where Spirit first is reasonable (I think so).....
you are not willing to accept that reasoning.

There will be no experiment.

I still see that you are being irritatingly evasive.

So let me repost my questions to you:

1. Do you understand the difference between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis?
2. Do you understand the difference between evidence and proof?

Either the answer the questions above. Or provide definition on these 4 words of scientific hypothesis, theory, evidence and proof.

And judging by this last reply...

Theory is all fine and good if you can proceed to the experiment and produce results that would THEN allow for the declaration of 'proof'.

...you have no idea what PROOF mean in the scientific and mathematical communities.

Evidence and proof are two different words in the science world, and science most often required "evidences" than they would require "proof". Science used evidences to verify and valid a hypothesis to be true or not true. The more evidences there are to support the hypothesis, the more is the possibilities that the hypothesis to be correct and factual. The hypothesis and all the evidences need to be review and tested by their peers. Once the hypothesis have been thoroughly tested and investigated, only then can the hypothesis become a scientific theory.

Until you understand the difference, your academic records are meaningless and seriously lacking in scientific literacy. Do us all a favor, do a little research, and read up and understand each scientific term.

 

[LuisDantas]

One must wonder why you keep misusing the scientific terms while making a point of stating that you are aware of the proper definitions regardless, Thief.

 

[Scimitar]

hamza tzortzis, though a muslim, argues creation theory the best... and many proponents of atheism just won't debate him because he knows how to corner them all too well.

check him out on youtube if you have the time.

 

[LuisDantas]

hamza tzortzis, though a muslim, argues creation theory the best... and many proponents of atheism just won't debate him because he knows how to corner them all too well.

check him out on youtube if you have the time.

I guess I will sometime, but it is important not to encourage Creationism. It survives mainly because people give it the means to delude itself.