What did God do before creation?

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 24 · Next

AuthorMessage
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15682
Credit: 83,181,054
RAC: 20,062
United States
Message 1285539 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:00:04 UTC - in response to Message 1285534.  

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.

Hence my (unstated) discomfort in my posting last night. Typing out "string theory", when it should be "The Stringy Hypothesis" was gnawing at me at some subconscious level.


Agreed. I don't really like the name of it either, and generally it is bad form to put the word 'theory' in your hypothesis to make it sound like it is more accepted than it is.

Though I don't know who's fault it is for the naming. Was it the person that came up with the hypothesis or was it the media/general populous that named it a theory before it was proven?
ID: 1285539 · Report as offensive
Horacio

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,967,266
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 1285544 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:12:21 UTC - in response to Message 1285539.  

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.
Hence my (unstated) discomfort in my posting last night. Typing out "string theory", when it should be "The Stringy Hypothesis" was gnawing at me at some subconscious level.
Agreed. I don't really like the name of it either, and generally it is bad form to put the word 'theory' in your hypothesis to make it sound like it is more accepted than it is.
Though I don't know who's fault it is for the naming. Was it the person that came up with the hypothesis or was it the media/general populous that named it a theory before it was proven?

I guess the issue is that "theory" was a wrong choice of a word for use in the scientific concept of "accepted fact":

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
ID: 1285544 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15682
Credit: 83,181,054
RAC: 20,062
United States
Message 1285552 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:23:46 UTC - in response to Message 1285544.  

Unfortunately, so many people use the word 'theory' when they mean 'hypothesis' that the meaning has been obscured.
Hence my (unstated) discomfort in my posting last night. Typing out "string theory", when it should be "The Stringy Hypothesis" was gnawing at me at some subconscious level.
Agreed. I don't really like the name of it either, and generally it is bad form to put the word 'theory' in your hypothesis to make it sound like it is more accepted than it is.
Though I don't know who's fault it is for the naming. Was it the person that came up with the hypothesis or was it the media/general populous that named it a theory before it was proven?

I guess the issue is that "theory" was a wrong choice of a word for use in the scientific concept of "accepted fact":

In modern science, the term "theory" refers to scientific theories, a well-confirmed type of explanation of nature, made in a way consistent with scientific method, and fulfilling the criteria required by modern science. Such theories are described in such a way that any scientist in the field is in a position to understand and either provide empirical support ("verify") or empirically contradict ("falsify") it. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge, in contrast to more common uses of the word "theory" that imply that something is unproven or speculative...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory


Quite the opposite. Science is actually using the term "theory" correctly. It is because science uses theory to mean an idea that has been proven through experiment and observation, but then theory can change based upon new information, that many people started using "theory" to mean an unproven idea, when that is really what a "hypothesis" is.

This happens to words all the time in the English language, which is what makes the English language so hard to learn, because meanings are rather fluid and can change over time to incorporate new meanings accepted by the general populace.

Most people from technical backgrounds in any field will of course prefer to stick to specific meanings that were previously agreed upon so that everyone is on the same level of understanding an idea or concept. This is why science is in fact using the term "theory" correctly, and the "common" use of the word is incorrect. It's a very common misconception that only a small percentage of the population actually understands.
ID: 1285552 · Report as offensive
Horacio

Send message
Joined: 14 Jan 00
Posts: 536
Credit: 75,967,266
RAC: 0
Argentina
Message 1285565 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 17:43:42 UTC

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Word Origin & History:
1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.


While I agree that in the scientific use of the word, "theory" is still valid as all theories may change or be upgraded if there are new facts, I think that its not the right word to make enough difference in its meaning against hipothesis...
ID: 1285565 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15682
Credit: 83,181,054
RAC: 20,062
United States
Message 1285583 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 18:14:17 UTC - in response to Message 1285565.  

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theory

Word Origin & History:
1590s, "conception, mental scheme," from L.L. theoria (Jerome), from Gk. theoria "contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at," from theorein "to consider, speculate, look at," from theoros "spectator," from thea "a view" + horan "to see." Sense of "principles or methods of a science or art (rather than its practice)" is first recorded 1610s. That of "an explanation based on observation and reasoning" is from 1630s.

Synonyms:
1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.


While I agree that in the scientific use of the word, "theory" is still valid as all theories may change or be upgraded if there are new facts, I think that its not the right word to make enough difference in its meaning against hipothesis...


Those etymologies are only confirming my point. The technical meaning is the correct one. The non-technical meaning is the layman's use of the term and is incorrect.

Because the technical use of the word is correct, it is the layman's term that has diluted it's meaning. Ergo, you cannot say that it is "not the right word" to convey it's difference from the term hypothesis. It only stands to reason that the word's meaning shouldn't be further diluted by allowing it to be used incorrectly without challenge.
ID: 1285583 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2341
Credit: 925,762
RAC: 263
Message 1285585 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 18:15:19 UTC
Last modified: 19 Sep 2012, 18:19:34 UTC

Einstein's special law of general relativity as well as general law of relativity are being called or thought of as being just theories.

Why? Because these theories are pure speculation. What these theories imply or are being meant to possibly be can generally not been proven or verified practically, therefore they are not being carried out in practise either.

Take an eclipse of the sun back in 1919. The position of the background stars where shown to be slightly off their known position because the gravity from the sun was bending the light which were coming from these stars.

So I have mentioned this thing before, perhaps? So what then about the notion or subject of time and the paradoxes it presents to us. Could it be shown or proven in practise? What about time travel? We assume that time travel is related to the subject of wormholes as well as gravity.

But what about time itself? Does time always need to be but into context with something else, like gravity, or may time perhaps be something that is on its own?

If time may be shown to be slowing up (or maybe even speeding up), this is because another factor, like gravity is inflicting its functionality. But if I was so lucky that I could travel either back or forward in time and showing up either at home or maybe somewhere completely else, I would be subject to the rules given by the properties of time and possibly thankful for the possiblities such time travel may be able to give me.
ID: 1285585 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9953
Credit: 7,399,343
RAC: 77
United Kingdom
Message 1285689 - Posted: 19 Sep 2012, 23:27:55 UTC - in response to Message 1285585.  
Last modified: 19 Sep 2012, 23:28:54 UTC

Einstein's special law of general relativity as well as general law of relativity are being called or thought of as being just theories.

Why? Because these theories are pure speculation. ...

You WHAT?!!!

I guess you'd best turn off your GPS and never use it again, just for one proven real world example.

Or can you realign your idea of "theory"?...

Note that the humility of science acknowledges that we are not all-knowing Omnipotent. Such blind arrogance is reserved only to Religion.


Please get real. Or at least do not abuse real science with your befuddlement religion.

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285689 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2341
Credit: 925,762
RAC: 263
Message 1285695 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 0:27:39 UTC - in response to Message 1285689.  

Oh, didn't Albert Einstein receive the Nobel Prize for his special relativity?

Apparently some people were foresighted even at that time.

Or maybe I am wrong on this point.
ID: 1285695 · Report as offensive
bobby "snowflake"
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,627,438
RAC: 1,071
United States
Message 1285728 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 4:18:50 UTC - in response to Message 1285695.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 4:19:35 UTC

Oh, didn't Albert Einstein receive the Nobel Prize for his special relativity?

Apparently some people were foresighted even at that time.

Or maybe I am wrong on this point.


Yes, you are wrong, Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". The photoelectric effect is not part of Einstein's theories of relativity
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1285728 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1285904 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 17:18:27 UTC

Intelligent Design is a theory, one that can be tested and has been tested over and over again. Just like Mr. E's theory that gravity bends light.
ID: 1285904 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9953
Credit: 7,399,343
RAC: 77
United Kingdom
Message 1285908 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 17:24:51 UTC - in response to Message 1285904.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 17:29:32 UTC

Intelligent Design is a theory, one that can be tested and has been tested over and over again...

And that 'theory' as you describe it has been found to be baseless/false. There is a non-fanciful theory that better fits what we observe in the real world.

A very religious man, Darwin is famously credited with our best fitting theory for how and why life evolves on our planet. His work is corroborated and complimented by many others.

I'm sorry, but "Intelligent Design" and "Creationism" are just two examples of blind belief. No theory there at all. Do they go as far as being their own religions?


As ascribed to another religious man turned scientist: And yet it moves...

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285908 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15682
Credit: 83,181,054
RAC: 20,062
United States
Message 1285917 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 17:31:18 UTC - in response to Message 1285904.  

Intelligent Design is a theory, one that can be tested and has been tested over and over again. Just like Mr. E's theory that gravity bends light.


How does one test for Intelligent Design?
ID: 1285917 · Report as offensive
musicplayer

Send message
Joined: 17 May 10
Posts: 2341
Credit: 925,762
RAC: 263
Message 1285938 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:16:51 UTC

Here is another link I found today:

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

Apparently the word axiom is being used instead.
ID: 1285938 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9622
Credit: 26,647,427
RAC: 24,147
United States
Message 1285941 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:22:12 UTC - in response to Message 1285917.  

+1
ID: 1285941 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1285943 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:29:21 UTC

Allow me to repeat myself and then prove what I say later tonight when I have more time..."Intelligent Design is a theory that has testing. This testing, can be done over and over again just like Mr. E's theory that light is bent by gravity."
ID: 1285943 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 9622
Credit: 26,647,427
RAC: 24,147
United States
Message 1285953 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 18:58:33 UTC - in response to Message 1285943.  

Allow me to repeat myself and then prove what I say later tonight when I have more time..."Intelligent Design is a theory that has testing. This testing, can be done over and over again just like Mr. E's theory that light is bent by gravity."

ID, would you please elucidate what test I can observe.
ID: 1285953 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9953
Credit: 7,399,343
RAC: 77
United Kingdom
Message 1285957 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 19:01:45 UTC - in response to Message 1285943.  
Last modified: 20 Sep 2012, 19:01:55 UTC

Allow me to repeat myself and then prove what I say later tonight when I have more time..."Intelligent Design is a theory that has testing. This testing, can be done over and over again..."

You can repeat the same claim as many times as you wish. That just makes you very repetitive.

Regardless of however many number of repeats you wish to impose, wild baseless claims will remain just as wild and baseless.


Try reading Terry Pratchett's "Small Gods" to see how that world fits your dreams?

Keep searchin',
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285957 · Report as offensive
Profile skildude
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 4 Oct 00
Posts: 9533
Credit: 47,112,542
RAC: 29,976
Yemen
Message 1285959 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 19:02:29 UTC - in response to Message 1285953.  

yes how does one look over the shoulder of the Creator to examine his/her work?
In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope
ID: 1285959 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 9953
Credit: 7,399,343
RAC: 77
United Kingdom
Message 1285961 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 19:05:18 UTC - in response to Message 1285959.  

yes how does one look over the shoulder of the Creator to examine his/her work?

There's the old philosophical Zebra Crossing paradox for that...



Keep searchin',
Martin

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1285961 · Report as offensive
Profile Johnney Guinness
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 11 Sep 06
Posts: 3093
Credit: 2,652,287
RAC: 0
Ireland
Message 1286020 - Posted: 20 Sep 2012, 22:08:08 UTC

To the Darwinists,
Intelligent Design is a very legitimate scientific theory. Only a fool who does not understand genetic engineering would dare to challenge the word of God!

There is a full scientific document, its called the Bible, and its jam packed full of scientific evidence for God.

To those people here that are knocking Robert for saying Intelligent Design has no scientific basis, you guys are liars and fools! You don't represent the mainstream scientific community. You don't speak on behalf of the global scientific community! Many of you claim to have "scientific evidence" on your side. But you don't!! You have nothing to back up your claim that living creatures evolve!

You are in a very small minority of the global population of Earth that does not believe in a creator God of some kind! So remember that!! Darwinists and Evolutionists are very much a minority group of people!! Me and Robert are part of the majority who know with 100% scientific confidence that God exists! Me and Robert know this because we read the Bible and we know the truth!

John.
ID: 1286020 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9 · 10 . . . 24 · Next

Message boards : Politics : What did God do before creation?


 
©2019 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.