Lots of mystical crap on this page.

Earwicker wrote:We can't say anything, with certainty, about 'reality'.
Science tells us that.

Yes, and common sense tell us filling the gaps with imagined ideas, however how well thought out, are not arguments.

Wick, you really are living in a dream world, your entire argument is based on semantic tricks not solid ideas. If you are incapable of seeing how empty your arguments are... well, I'm a little bored with pointing out the bus sized holes in your case...

"My God is the bestest, big God." is not an argument, you are setting the frame of debate and using semantics and conjecture, not arguments.

Anyone care to step in, Linus?

Rick Reuben wrote:Easy to see when Gramsci's been posting drunk again...

Nah, look at the time in London Bob, I just woke up...

But if you want to be my personal spell checker... well, you finally might have some use!

Rick Reuben wrote:non-theory explanations? That's priceless.

You can laugh at me for knowing what "theory" means, but the joke's on you.

It looks like you have nothing more to contribute to this thread than a misunderstanding of what words mean, and bitter whiny false accusations of bigotry and intolerance. The more you post, the bigger the joke gets. Pick up a book instead.

"The God Theory" is a good book title because it's attention-getting. It's attention-getting because the juxtaposition of two concepts that don't belong together ("God" and "theory") is jarring, as I'm sure the author was aware. Even if he wasn't -- even if the author really thinks he can have a true theory of god, you've still got one individual scientist opposed to the entire community. But it's not surprising that you will just uncritically believe whatever scrap you can find that fits your worldview, regardless of weight and credibility.

Why do you think it reflects a bias towards atheism or a bias against God or a bias against creationism to point out that God and creationism are not accurately described as theories?

Do you think it reflects a bias against James K. Polk to point out that he was shorter than Abraham Lincoln? Of course you don't, because you don't think it's bad to be short.

You think that my pointing out that God is not a theory reflects a bias against God for this reason: because you think theories are better than other explanations. You value theories over non-theories, and so you desperately want God to be a theory. You're so desperate that you'll sputter indignantly about bigotry and intolerance, you'll make up lies like a "lawyer's obligation to lie for his client," and resurrect your obsession with the Fed and 9/11 and your easily debunked canards about the income tax. You need to recognize that it's not my "bias" against god that's making you angry. It's your bias in favor of theories. Drop that bias, or drop god. Or stay angry.

It's no longer frustrating to argue with you. It's become amusing. As I said before, the more you post, the bigger the joke gets.

So, we've had the argument from personal incredulity, the strawman argument, the argument from authority, the repeated mischaracterizations of other people's positions, the namecalling, the accusations of bigotry and intolerance, the comparisons to racists, the failure to educate yourself about the basics of what you're trying to talk about, and the CT lies. I can't wait to see how you make the joke bigger.

Oh right, I forgot about the "herdthink." 90-odd percent of Americans are theists, most Americans don't trust atheists, but a bias toward atheism is "herdthink." Got it.

God doesn't explain the creation of the Universe, the creation of the Universe explains God.

The idea that the Universe was created is an explanation needed to defend the idea of God. Which is exactly what you are doing here, bringing up a secondary idea that you have no evidence for to defend your first explanation without having to properly address the ideas of LVP and Gramsci.

Discussion about "the creation of original matter" is nothing but recourse to mystical nonsense.

Ricky Bobby, your contention that the existence of God is a "theory" is evidence that you have no idea what a theory really is.

In your view, all you need to do is make a bold assertion (especially an accusation of criminality against any significant, established organization) then browse the Web for some information kind of obliquely related to it, twist around some words and phrases to make it sound sinister, maybe copy and paste a few unrelated charts and graphs to "illustrate" that you've done your research, then post the whole mess on an Internet message board and voila! You've proffered a brilliant new theory which is no more or less valid than any other theory.

The next step, of course, is to defend it like a rabid junkyard dog against anyone who disagrees even the slightest little bit, using accusatory rhetoric, strawman attacks, childish namecalling, self-aggrandizement and arrogant chest-thumping.

Is this how you really think intellectual advancements are made?

Rick Reuben wrote:The facts: matter exists.

Debatable.

Rick Reuben wrote:Merriam Webster-

Theory

1: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another

2: abstract thought : speculation

Were we talking about science? Yes, we were. Of all the six definitions that Merriam Webster gives for theory, is there any reason why we would, in the context of talking about science, use two definitions no scientist would ever use? No, there is not. Definition 5 is the one you want. 6a and 6c are also close. Note that "God created the universe" doesn't fit into 1, only 2.

Dictionary.com does a better job - it puts the better definitions up front, and leaves the ones you're looking for at 6 and 7.

I'm happy for you that you actually looked in a dictionary. That's a great first step in curing ignorance, and I'm proud of you. I'm sure we all are. But you have to break yourself of your habit of cherry-picking the results that you're looking for. The same word can mean different things in different contexts. Being conscious of context is important. Instead of, or in addition to, consulting the dictionary, you might want to look to other sources for a fuller explanation.

A Wikipedia page that hasn't been edited in three whole days wrote:In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation.

That's pretty good. Some people might argue with parts, but mostly minor quibbles. But don't stop there! (Although if you did, you'd be okay.) Keep looking around and get an understanding of what you're talking about.

"God created the universe" is a theory in one sense of the word, yes. This is absolutely true and basically meaningless. In science, a theory has to be more than conjecture. "God created the universe" is not a theory.

If you rely on Merriam Webster's definition 3a for "tea," you could say that coffee is tea. If you were posting in a "What's Your Favorite Kind of Tea?" thread, and you said coffee is your favorite kind of tea, people would think you didn't know what was going on. And they'd be right.

"God created the universe..." is a theory, but not a scientific one. It's pointless to even compare the two, the spiritual, and the scientific. Faith relies on belief, science on observation, and empirical testing.