• 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!

"Theory" vs. "Scientific Theory" (Huge Difference)

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Again, you simply do not understand how "theory" is used within the scientific community. The reality is that a scientific theory deals with one general subject (let's say "evolution", "gravity", etc.) but is multifaceted. IOW, it's a composite of hypotheses and possibly axioms. Yes, a theory may be proven to be incorrect or partially incorrect in terms of it's main point (depending on how it's worded), or that it may have be adjusted over time.

Therefore, items like "gravitational theory", "evolutionary theory", etc, may be adjusted as time goes on, but not at all likely to be proven wrong. However, there is no such scientific thing as a "theory of God" since there's no objectively-derived evidence to support it. If one believes, it is based on belief, not science.
theory is a word with another one right behind it.......explanation.

say as you please and your words are an explanation.
you can support your theory as you please.....
but it is only an explanation.

I don't have to accept your explanation.

(btw....since you mentioned God....I believe BECAUSE of science)
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
theory is a word with another one right behind it.......explanation.

say as you please and your words are an explanation.
you can support your theory as you please.....
but it is only an explanation.

I don't have to accept your explanation.
But it is neither you nor I that can invent in what you call an "explanation"-- it's done by the scientific community throughout the world. It's fine and dandy that you believe in what you believe in, but when you try to justify it on some sort of scientific basis, you simply do not have the power to change our terminology and how we use it. Words like "theory" and "hypothesis" have specific definitions in the scientific community, so if you decide you are not willing to abide by how they are used, you no longer are talking science.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
(btw....since you mentioned God....I believe BECAUSE of science)
No, you do not. "Science" is not handled through personal whims. Just because I may believe the world's coming to end tomorrow does not make my belief "science". There's a process we go through, and you are not following that process.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
No, you do not. "Science" is not handled through personal whims. Just because I may believe the world's coming to end tomorrow does not make my belief "science". There's a process we go through, and you are not following that process.
Cause and effect.
substance is not self creating nor self starting
dead things do not beget the living.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
At the end of the day, this is all pretty understandable in terms of the oft repeatable example of someone stating that the theory of evolution is "just a theory. " To anyone who cares about the distinction, this clearly highlights what it is.
 

Wirey

Fartist
the hall of mirrors trick doesn't work on God.

Someone had to be First in mind and heart.

Hall of mirrors? You mean valid question, right? "There has always been a magic outer space wizard and one day he made giraffes" shouldn't be said in the same sentence as science.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
theory is a word with another one right behind it.......explanation.

say as you please and your words are an explanation.
you can support your theory as you please.....
but it is only an explanation.

I don't have to accept your explanation.

(btw....since you mentioned God....I believe BECAUSE of science)
Yet you don't even understand what a "scientific theory" is. Countless resources have been shown to you, but you have stobbornly refused to acknowledge any of them. Instead you looked up a different term "theory" as it is used in common discourse rather than how "scientific theory" is used in science.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Yet you don't even understand what a "scientific theory" is. Countless resources have been shown to you, but you have stobbornly refused to acknowledge any of them. Instead you looked up a different term "theory" as it is used in common discourse rather than how "scientific theory" is used in science.
I understand....you're just hoping to use the term as your own personal trump card.
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Hall of mirrors? You mean valid question, right? "There has always been a magic outer space wizard and one day he made giraffes" shouldn't be said in the same sentence as science.
Someone had to be First.....
now drop the magic trick......it's just mirrors to you
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
yeah....Dr Kaku has a 'problem' with it.

I don't
Neither do I, and in reality nor does Kaku with the exception he states that it is impossible to determine if it is correct. I responded to this before when someone posted it, and I provided quote and a link to what Kaku believes on this matter, but I don't remember which thread nor whom I was responding to.
 
Top