"God theory"

[Observer of dreams]

A theory is made on an observation. On a non-believer level one may say God is theory not fact. In 'God theory" or any other theory the predictions must match the substance to become fact. For instance Newtons 1st and 2nd laws were originally no more than simple predictions based on the world around him. In order to prove the "God theory" or any other theory wrong one must have suffecient evidence that the predictions do not match the substance.

The "God Theory"

In "God Theory" we discover these main points

1. We were created by a being of infinite intelligence, and infintie possibilities

Book of Genisis

2. There are laws one must live by to better the lives of those around them.

1 Timothy 8

8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine.

3. One day the Earth will come to an end.

In order to prove the "God theory" wrong one must have sufficient evidence that shows one of these as untrue. Number 1 and number 3 are impossible for man to determine to be false. Obviously if number 3 were proven true we would not be here, but since we don't know when the end is supposed to happen it is still a possability at this point in time.

One cannot disprove a theory based on a "you can't prove it" argument. For instance the theory that the world rested on the back of a turtle was disproven only when photographs were taken from space that showed there is no turtle. Even though there was no proof of this turtle the theory held strong until that fateful day [it was a bit shaken up by that Columbus fellow however, and also by Newton, Galileo, and the rest of the "rat Pack."]

Also one cannot disprove a theory with a theory. This is attempted by suggesting that since the universe is chaotic it must not have had a creator.

The ten commandments spell out the way one must live to make others happy and therefore in harmony, if they don't do these things others will be unhappy and therefore unharmonious.

The observations made in the law of God match the outcomes of our world perfectly. The law of God is therefore fact.

Edited October 4, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[Observer of dreams]

Atheist the answer for your first question is pay attention to the quotes.

Secondly I was speaking about all the laws that God has made that have not been diminished by Jesus.

definition of "theory"

A. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena

B.a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.

C.contemplation or speculation.

D.guess or conjecture.

Secondly the definition of conjecture is.....

the formation or expression of an opinion or theory without sufficient evidence for proof.

Edited October 5, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[Observer of dreams]

Sorry for the confusion Atheist, the definitions I placed were for Lapeca who, by saying that God was nothing more than a guess admitted God was a theory by way of definition C. In order for God not to be classified as a theory this way, God should not be able to meet any of the definitions of the word theory.

I made a mistake in the first post. I started off by using "theory" in the scientific sense of the word, but later on in my dialog I used the word "theory" in a way that one would use it in the phrases "Music theory"[NOTE 1] or "number theory" I apologize for this and will clarify.

Basically the gist of what I was getting at in the opening post is that Gods laws are facts. The "God theory" is the application of his laws in our life, and how they have effected man during the course of time which is relative to the observer. Since Gods' laws have never wavered one can apply the law of God and predict outcomes of behavior, much like one can apply the laws of music and predict the sounds,

This means that if I apply the law that states, "A man who is dishonest with little, will be dishonest with much." I can predict that if person A steals $1.00 from person B who is there friend they are just as likley to steal $50.00 from another friend.

[NOTE 1: If I go through the whole octave of C I will hit these notes; C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C] Therefore an octave will always end with the note that the octave was started on.]

[NOTE 2: To anyone that says "Well duh!" Consider that we also have that, "Well duh!" feeling when we hear that an object at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by a force.]

Edited October 6, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[redeemed098]

Good, just making sure that you have your definitions straight on that. Too many people bugger up "Theory" as "Idea", when the word is not used like that in a scientific context.

You're right, then. God is an idea, and there is no way to disprove an idea.

I suppose your post makes sense, although I would say that you would not need God's Law to predict that a thief will steal again and steal more if he does not get punished. It only takes a basic understanding of psychology to realize that if a human does something to benefit him/herself, and does not face any consequences, (s)he will be reinforced for that behavior and will probably do it again.

AAA, Please refrain from using the Word "Bugger" on Worthy Boards....If you are uncertain as to why..? Please look up the definition of this word..Even if it is for no other reason than to show respect towards those you are speaking to. "Buggery is Sodomy."

bugger

n : someone who engages in anal copulation (especially a male who engages in anal copulation with another male) [syn: sodomite, sodomist, sod] v : practice anal sex upon [syn: sodomize, sodomise

Regards,

Ben.

[redeemed098]

Good, just making sure that you have your definitions straight on that. Too many people bugger up "Theory" as "Idea", when the word is not used like that in a scientific context.

You're right, then. God is an idea, and there is no way to disprove an idea.

I suppose your post makes sense, although I would say that you would not need God's Law to predict that a thief will steal again and steal more if he does not get punished. It only takes a basic understanding of psychology to realize that if a human does something to benefit him/herself, and does not face any consequences, (s)he will be reinforced for that behavior and will probably do it again.

This is true AAA.

As a young boy, I once stole something from a supermarket...I was successful in my attempt, and therefore figured I must be pretty good at it...I continued to do it and one day of course got caught...Nobody had actually told me or made me aware of how wrong it was, yet I still figured it was best not to get caught..The main reason for stealing in my mind was a desire to have something for myself that I could not afford and neither could my parents...If I really really wanted it, I had to steal it....

Ive since learned that as a small boy, although I had no real awareness of the severity of stealing or the real consequence, what drove me was a covetous desire to have something that was not mine...Yet I wanted it to BE mine...I was even prepared to steal it to get it....

As a small boy, I coveted..When I did know what coveting WAS....Isnt that interesting...???

Regards,

Ben.

[redeemed098]

Sorry for the confusion Atheist, the definitions I placed were for Lapeca who, by saying that God was nothing more than a guess admitted God was a theory by way of definition C. In order for God not to be classified as a theory this way, God should not be able to meet any of the definitions of the word theory.

Definition C is not the definition of scientific theory so you're still not allowed to say "God theory".

It isn't even a scientific hypothesis, which is instead, from WP, "a hypothesis (a testable conjecture) that has not been tested by the prediction validation process for a scientific theory." Since God is not testable in any way, it's just a guess or, more to the point, a superstition.

God is testable Lepaca..

Do what he says and see what happens.

"Taste and see that the Lord is good." Repent of your sins and desire to know Gods Ways....Follow after him...

God IS testable..Put his principles into action and see what happens..

Regards,

Ben.

[redeemed098]

God is testable Lepaca..

Do what he says and see what happens.

"Taste and see that the Lord is good." Repent of your sins and desire to know Gods Ways....Follow after him...

God IS testable..Put his principles into action and see what happens..

Regards,

Ben.

I'm afraid that's not the way things are tested in science. The way testing is done is part of that big conspiracy against religion.

So step outside the box...What have you got to lose..? Science didnt just happen one day Lepaca...Things were tested...Science developed through the process of testing philosophy....If a man says that a fish placed in a bucket of water will displace the water almost to the top, until it is tested it will always remain a philosophy....One day a man decided to see if it was true...It was...NO longer philosophy, the theory had been proven...

So you see, you CAN test God...In the same way science tests theory...Try it..! See if his principles when put into action actually work..If they dont then you have tested the evidence....If you never test according to the evidence provided, you will never know..It will always remain a theory to you..That is like saying theres no God when youve never even bothered to look..

Regards,

Ben.

[Observer of dreams]

Sorry for the confusion Atheist, the definitions I placed were for Lapeca who, by saying that God was nothing more than a guess admitted God was a theory by way of definition C. In order for God not to be classified as a theory this way, God should not be able to meet any of the definitions of the word theory.

Definition C is not the definition of scientific theory so you're still not allowed to say "God theory".

It isn't even a scientific hypothesis, which is instead, from WP, "a hypothesis (a testable conjecture) that has not been tested by the prediction validation process for a scientific theory." Since God is not testable in any way, it's just a guess or, more to the point, a superstition.

Lol you've done it again lepeca. I already explained before you posted the statment above that I didn't mean the word theory to mean scientific theory but I meant it as music theory and I apologized for my mistake. god is testable, test his laws and try and find a flaw with them. Since you have an ideology and not a philosophy you will not find any evidence saticfactory. If you cannot find a flaw with his laws you will dismiss them anyways.

Atheist I see what you mean by "we don't need God's law, just a basic understanding of psychology." My argument is that a child knows that when he takes something it is wrong. The bible is like a complete moral dictionary of all bad and good behavior. Bad behavior is the temptation part and good behavior is love of God. If you think about it temptaion and sin usually make one feel bad and they continue in a circle from.

From a psychological standpoint one would classify being tempted as High risk behavior, they repeat high risk behavior because they get a high from it, then fall into a slump of depression after the initial joy wears off, then they repeat the cycle. In the love of God behavior this high risk is eliminated and one learns to get high off of leaving a really big tip on someone elses table instead of stealing a tip off of a table. They realize that they don't have to face negative consequences when they get high in this way and continue to do good.

The reason I hold the bible above psychology is because everything in the above paragragh is in the bible. The art of psychology was invented in the end of the 19th century but everything you needed to know about it was already there.

Edited October 7, 2006 by Observer of dreams

[khalou]

Butting in here.

Lol you've done it again lepeca. I already explained before you posted the statment above that I didn't mean the word theory to mean scientific theory but I meant it as music theory and I apologized for my mistake. god is testable, test his laws and try and find a flaw with them. Since you have an ideology and not a philosophy you will not find any evidence saticfactory. If you cannot find a flaw with his laws you will dismiss them anyways.

God is not testable.

Atheist I see what you mean by "we don't need God's law, just a basic understanding of psychology." My argument is that a child knows that when he takes something it is wrong. The bible is like a complete moral dictionary of all bad and good behavior. Bad behavior is the temptation part and good behavior is love of God. If you think about it temptaion and sin usually make one feel bad and they continue in a circle from.

There is no such thing as an absolute moral standard that can be derived from the Bible.

From a psychological standpoint one would classify being tempted as High risk behavior, they repeat high risk behavior because they get a high from it, then fall into a slump of depression after the initial joy wears off, then they repeat the cycle. In the love of God behavior this high risk is eliminated and one learns to get high off of leaving a really big tip on someone elses table instead of stealing a tip off of a table. They realize that they don't have to face negative consequences when they get high in this way and continue to do good.

Are you suggesting that without God, people run rampant?

The reason I hold the bible above psychology is because everything in the above paragragh is in the bible. The art of psychology was invented in the end of the 19th century but everything you needed to know about it was already there.

Hardly. The Bible would have you pray for peace in an emotionally intense situation. If you get it, (and, believe me, you will) then you will repress your emotions. That is not healthy.

Belief in a God doesn't change anything except the individual's perception. Bad things happen? It is because either God is testing me, or teaching me something. Good things happen? It is because God is rewarding me, or Satan is tempting me.

But there is no difference between a believer and a non-believer in what they experience in reality.

Christianity works, of that I have no doubt. But there is no way to determine whether it is because there is a God, or because of the perspective one gains of reality by believing.

k

[Observer of dreams]

The atheists that have responded to my topic have an ideology, not a philosophy. Nothing one says in favor of God can ever be sufficient for you. You take things personally that you shouldn't, you have an attitude with people you don't know, you make grand arguments based on flat statements, and refuse to answer questions that violate your ideology.

1. God is not testable

By your logic newton is not testable and is therefore non-exsistant, and let me explain why. Both God and Newtons laws are factual and hold ground when scrutinized, both Newton and God have a history that is recorded in books written by them, or people that knew them very well. Both Newton and God have been seen by humans and their accounts have been recorded. Why is it that you can say Newton exsisted and not say God exsists? Is it because there is a tombstone with his name? Have you ever seen his body? I disagree with this statment that God is not testable just as much as I disagree with the statment that Newton is untestable.

2.There is no such thing as an absolute moral standard that can be derived from the Bible.

Yes there is, read it again. It is as plain as the nose on your face.

3. Are you suggesting that without God, people run rampant?

Did I suggest that? Or are you twisting what I said around to mean something it's not? My statment was that people behave certain ways and the bible shows a map of all possible behavior patterns but you can take whatever you want out of it.

4. [A]Hardly. The Bible would have you pray for peace in an emotionally intense situation. If you get it, (and, believe me, you will) then you will repress your emotions.[C] That is not healthy.

[D]Belief in a God doesn't change anything except the individual's perception. Bad things happen? It is because either God is testing me, or teaching me something. Good things happen? It is because God is rewarding me, or Satan is tempting me.

[E]But there is no difference between a believer and a non-believer in what they experience in reality.

[F1]Christianity works, of that I have no doubt.[F2] But there is no way to determine whether it is because there is a God, or because of the perspective one gains of reality by believing.

[A] Hardly what?

If you repress your emotions it is a sign your not really trusting God with your prayer, therefore your not really praying but worrying out loud.

[C]What isn't healthy?

[D]Really? How do you know what it is like for a person of faith when you don't believe yourself? I can tell you what my experience was living in a trailer 5 years ago, but just because I didn't like it doesn't mean it's bad to live in trailers.

[E]I thought there perceptions were different.

[F1]Then why aren't you a christian if it works so well, and why don't you doubt that it works?[F2] Do you think there could be the possibility that it could be both? or neither?

Edited October 8, 2006 by Observer of dreams