Deus Ex Alpha

It's because it's really impossible to discuss your beliefs while being unbiased. Some people are better at it than others, but everyone is obviously biased toward their own belief system. Some so much that they won't even open their minds up to other possibilities, and THAT'S when it becomes a flame war.

'If there was no God, it would be necessary to invent Him.' - Voltaire

In the end, DX owns you all.

You said if something isn't experienced by people then it's unlikely that it's true.

No, I didn't say that. If something isn't experienced first hand, then whatever idea the person has, such as big bang, is a theory. It will become a fact if someone can experience it.

Experience is the ultimate emphasis, and evidence isn't as strong.

Do we have to do this again? Everything is a theory. I think you have the wrong understanding of what the word actually means.

I'll say again, though, that at our present level of intelligence none of these theories can be proven nor disproven. As I've stated at least 5 times during this thread, it's all a matter of which is more likely.

You could even go as far as to say "I believe in God AS WELL AS the big bang. The big bang is how God created everything." but that's not as plausible as my explanation. You see, in that explanation you have to invent the idea of God.

We're back to Occam's razor.

Who said everything was a theory? I think you do not know the definition of theory. A theory is almost exactly like a conjecture, but more people base that theories are likely.

1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION

See here in this dictionary definition of theory, it says ABSTRACT thought, meaning something you cannot touch. Let's look at another definition:

a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>

What does phenomena mean? A phenomena is something that cannot/is rarely experienced and is based off inferences and assumptions. And a theory is a plausible explanation for a phenomena.

Ie, the existence of humans is not a theory at all because it is experienced day-to-day and isn't considered a phenomena.

The theory of Evolution as said by Darwin is a theory because no one experienced it and lived to write/tell/speak about it.

Do you still not get it?

I can quote the Internet too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or 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. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Cereal wrote:I can quote the Internet too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or 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. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation.

Wikipedia is written by people, and it can be edited at any time. Try looking up Theory in an actual, BOOK encyclopedia.

In science, from GCSE chemistry, a theory was a proposed method of observation and experience, to deduce what would more likely happen with an experiment.

We theorised both what should happen before an experiment, and then after the experiment we theorised why that happened.

We then had to prove the theories with proof, in the form of research, calculation or comparing observation.

Yeah, since it doesn't agree with YOU it's not true. Way to prove your ignorance. You obviously have no idea what scientific theory is, Cataclyzm.

But if it please you:

http://education.jlab.org/beamsactivity/6thgrade/vocabulary/

a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events

http://www.whatislife.com/glossary.htm

A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.

http://textbooks.brookespublishing.com/losardo/chapter1/keyterms.htm

An organized set of ideas that serves as a framework for interpreting facts and findings and a guide for scientific research.

But all of these are ran by people, too, right? Well, any "real" encyclopedia I've ever came across was written by people, too.

MrBlack wrote:In science, from GCSE chemistry, a theory was a proposed method of observation and experience, to deduce what would more likely happen with an experiment.

We theorised both what should happen before an experiment, and then after the experiment we theorised why that happened.

We then had to prove the theories with proof, in the form of research, calculation or comparing observation.

Exactly. A hypothesis. But whether or not your theory was backed by facts, or proven wrong, it was still a theory none the less. Gravity is a theory. Yes, it's a law, but it's still a theory.

Theory does not HAVE to mean unproven. It can, and certainly not all theories are proven, but they don't have to be unproven to be considered theory. That's what I'm trying to get through this guys head.

Cereal wrote:

MrBlack wrote:In science, from GCSE chemistry, a theory was a proposed method of observation and experience, to deduce what would more likely happen with an experiment.

We theorised both what should happen before an experiment, and then after the experiment we theorised why that happened.

We then had to prove the theories with proof, in the form of research, calculation or comparing observation.

Exactly. A hypothesis. But whether or not your theory was backed by facts, or proven wrong, it was still a theory none the less. Gravity is a theory. Yes, it's a law, but it's still a theory.

Theory does not HAVE to mean unproven. It can, and certainly not all theories are proven, but they don't have to be unproven to be considered theory. That's what I'm trying to get through this guys head.

But then maybe its a question of scientific preferance to what defines a proven theory

Theory as such can be proved, the question is whether a proven theory aka factual reasoning should still be considered theory.

I personally have always viewed theories as unproven ideas to fill in the gaps from the lack of factual reasoning in science

Ignorance? No, I just stated that many articles that WikiPedia has aren't always true.

But I'll break down your links:

a general principle that explains or predicts facts or events

Keyword: PREDICTS.

A scientific theory is an established and experimentally verified fact or collection of facts about the world. Unlike the everyday use of the word theory, it is not an unproved idea, or just some theoretical speculation. The latter meaning of a 'theory' in science is called a hypothesis.

Established and experimentally verified? How do you experiment with something 55 billion years ago? How can you prove the Theory of Evolution? Or was Darwin as ignorant as me for calling his predictions "a theory"?

Unproved? Unproven you mean? I would trust that site more had it the ability to spell correctly and look serious. Who even made that site anyway?

An organized set of ideas that serves as a framework for interpreting facts and findings and a guide for scientific research.

Keywords: FINDINGS and RESEARCH.

You have to understand in that skull of yours the difference between a THEORY and a LAW. A THEORY is a likely inference, when a THEORY is proven it becomes a LAW or even sometimes a FACT.

I capitalized all key words in there for you because I knew you would not understand normally.

That's the difference between an everyday theory and Scientific theory, which I tried explaining. I already said I didn't want to argue semantics, but it keeps being brought up.

Cereal wrote:That's the difference between an everyday theory and Scientific theory, which I tried explaining. I already said I didn't want to argue semantics, but it keeps being brought up.

well maybe its just another case of understanding "personal translation" before we all go around saying "NO YOUR WRONG IM RIGHT FU"

Cataclyzm, you are the most stubborn person on this message board. I'd much rather debate with DK right now even with his insults.


I'm talking about SCIENTIFIC THEORY. You're not. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It's semantics. I automatically assumed that since we're on the topic of science and religion, that we would be using the definition for scientific theory.

You should look at the word theory a bit more closely. I've never seen a theory in my life that's not considered an inference.

I'm the most stubborn person? I think you're just worried cus you're losing.

Cereal wrote:Cataclyzm, you are the most stubborn person on this message board.

Proven Theory => Fact

MrBlack wrote:

Cereal wrote:That's the difference between an everyday theory and Scientific theory, which I tried explaining. I already said I didn't want to argue semantics, but it keeps being brought up.

well maybe its just another case of understanding "personal translation" before we all go around saying "NO YOUR WRONG IM RIGHT FU"

That's why I said this in my previous reply, and before seeing yours:

I automatically assumed that since we're on the topic of science and religion, that we would be using the definition for scientific theory.

I never said he was wrong, I'm saying he's wrong in the definition for scientific theory. Even when I proved it through 4 links, I'm still the idiot.

cactus-clyzm wrote:You should look at the word theory a bit more closely. I've never seen a theory in my life that's not considered an inference.

I'm the most stubborn person? I think you're just worried cus you're losing.

Oh great here we go. Fine, Cataclyzm, if it makes you happy I've lost. Anything to get you shut up. I refuse to argue semantics in a debate, so just stop already. If it makes you feel better to say I've lost this meaningless argument, then for the sake of all that is good and holy in this universe, I have lost.

MrBlack wrote:

Cereal wrote:Cataclyzm, you are the most stubborn person on this message board.

Proven Theory => Fact

That analogy is true. A theory is a theory, meaning a most-likely and plausible inference, until it is proven, in which case it becomes a law or a fact. And there's no way you can prove I'm the most stubborn seeing as that's an opinion.

Cereal, I feel your determination in a debate is weak, therefore you hide behind excuses such as "semantics" and blah blah. I've been in your situation before, being outnumbered, but I did not give up.

...


Fuck you. Have it your way. I'm out of this "debate".


DK, Mr. Black, others whom I've argued with in this topic. Thank you for at least having the mental capacity to understand where I'm coming from.

sigh. How come every time I debate, even without insulting, people still think that I'm hostile, or I'm stupid? I understood your opinion and your links, so why do you wanna quit while we're here?

You need to do a little growing up every once in a while. And try not to label people too. I think you're just quitting because you don't like me disagreeing with your ideas, not because I was either wrong or right or whatever.

I think I'm not the one being stupid, it may very well be you..

My theory is you're all a bunch of gays. Jay stop posting using my account you little I'm a real boy!

69 wrote:My theory is you're all a bunch of gays. Jay stop posting using my account you little I'm a real boy!

How I agree.

Now touch me Derek!

69 wrote:Now touch me Derek!

For great justice?

[A]Hybrid wrote:I'll never understand why people can believe this shit. Maybe they're are just looking for any hope they can find to support death.

So why do you believe in it? It's clearly all so fragile, it can be shattered by a drop of common sense or a tiddle of science.

Any ideas?

I believe it gives people closure when their loved ones die and also give them light in a lonely existence. Are we alone in this black void we call space? Maybe religion was a con in the steel age to make a living. How can rules that you can live by turn into violence?

Cereal wrote:Convert? Hardly. What is your problem, DK? I answered your question, I don't know what you want. And of COURSE it isn't magic, again you're just trying to belittle me. Magic doesn't exist and I obviously don't believe in it.


What the hell can I convert you to, Atheism? I'm just trying to educate you on a scientific theory, you've got the wrong idea completely.


I wonder, what is YOUR theory on the origin of the universe, and why is it any less silly than mine?

You didn't answer me in the least.

I want solid, provable facts that point to the creation of our universe. No theory, no conjecture, but simple facts.

In my eyes, a theory that is based on other theory's might as well be a cult where everyone believes aliens will take them home. Sure, the science road is more likely, but after enough beers, anything seems likely.

Come see me when you can prove it, and I mean to imply the strongest meaning of the word.

Don't bother Steve, he will flame at you then say he is done with you, never getting anything achieved in the debate.

c[A]t wrote:Don't bother Steve, he will flame at you then say he is done with you, never getting anything achieved in the debate.

Call me an optimist.