God is certainly not a theory in the scientific definition of the word. A theory has to make specific verifiable predictions that differ from other theories; God as conceived by any of the world's major monotheistic religions does not do this.
Re 1st paragraph: I'm a scientist, and "theory" is a scientific word. Creationists misuse scientific words a lot to justify their views, and it makes me mad; I am not any happier when militant atheists misuse the same words for their own purposes.
Re 2nd paragraph: You seem to be asserting that, at least in this case, NOT (A AND NOT B) implies B. This is false; rather, it is tautologically equivalent to NOT A OR B and so implies NOT A as well as implying B. In this specific case, where A is "god is a theory" and B is "god is a fact," I explained clearly that I believe NOT A.
Ugh, screwed up my logic. NOT A OR B -- by which I meant, to be precise (NOT A) OR B -- does not imply either NOT A or B. It is true if either one or both is true, but neither must be true for it to be true. The point I was actually trying to make, in technical terms, is that if I believed B it would imply NOT (A AND NOT B), but if I believed NOT A it would imply the same.
Thus with A and B as above, you had only my comment (which was clear) to go by as to what I believe.
Discussion (12)
God is certainly not a theory in the scientific definition of the word. A theory has to make specific verifiable predictions that differ from other theories; God as conceived by any of the world's major monotheistic religions does not do this.
I didn't say 'in the scientific definition'. You are very pedantic, aren't you.
By disagreeing with this claim, you've just stated that you think God is a fact. Please back this up.
Re 1st paragraph: I'm a scientist, and "theory" is a scientific word. Creationists misuse scientific words a lot to justify their views, and it makes me mad; I am not any happier when militant atheists misuse the same words for their own purposes.
Re 2nd paragraph: You seem to be asserting that, at least in this case, NOT (A AND NOT B) implies B. This is false; rather, it is tautologically equivalent to NOT A OR B and so implies NOT A as well as implying B. In this specific case, where A is "god is a theory" and B is "god is a fact," I explained clearly that I believe NOT A.
The word 'theory' was around long before the scientific definition of it.
You can take 'theory' in this case to mean nothing more than 'a concept' or 'an idea'.
If you don't think God is a theory, or a fact, then please enlighten us as to your viewpoint.
Ugh, screwed up my logic. NOT A OR B -- by which I meant, to be precise (NOT A) OR B -- does not imply either NOT A or B. It is true if either one or both is true, but neither must be true for it to be true. The point I was actually trying to make, in technical terms, is that if I believed B it would imply NOT (A AND NOT B), but if I believed NOT A it would imply the same.
Thus with A and B as above, you had only my comment (which was clear) to go by as to what I believe.
Certainly God is a concept; but the use of "theory" in statements like this is a bit more derisive, don't you think?
Actually, no, you didn't mention anything about your beliefs.
No, you're right; you did worse: you claimed my disagreement implied something that it, factually, did not imply.
False dichotomy. Trashed claim.
Patrick, there are no arguements on atheism in this thread. You might need your eyes checked.
You should take all claims as seperate entities.
Claims inspired by this comment
It is reasonable to make observations about the apparent intention of a pattern of claims and comments made by a user, and to remark upon particular claims and comments in light of that pattern.mm, a hypothesis is different
from a theory.
And they are both different from
a fact.
A hypothesis is a untested theory.
Claims inspired by this comment
A scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory.