Theory of god

azor

I have noticed that theists have an aversion to the word theory. As it is mostly attached to evolution, and they have a deep misunderstanding of what the word means.

I'm probably botching the following statement but the general idea is as follows. It has been said that whoever sets the parameters of the battle or frames the argument wins. Theists continue to twist the meaning of words to confuse and help their flocks remain blind.

What if we started using some of their tactics against them. Frame the points of discussion. Stating belief in god as a theory anytime we discuss it with friends, neighbors, and forums may help some analyse what a theory actually is and how the theory of god does not move into the category of provable truth. In contrast to evolution and so on.

nicolaou

I see what you're trying to do and there's nothing wrong with it, I've sometimes referred to the 'theory of creation' here. But ultimately, the person with reason and evidence on his side doesn't need to resort to debating tricks.

If a person will believe that a man can walk on water in the face of every bit of reason, scientific evidence, common sense and personal experience available to them no "framing of the argument" will help.

Best tactic? Get educated, debate only what you understand and stick to the facts.

Jonathan Drake

My favorite explanation so far of theory is below. I use it when talking to believers now.

taken from:

Original Article

To truly understand evolution, you must first understand science. Unfortunately, one of the most misused words today is also one of the most important to science: theory. Many incorrectly see theory as the opposite of fact. The National Academy of Sciences provides concise definitions of these critical words: A fact is a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it; a theory is a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence generating testable and falsifiable predictions.
In science, something can be both theory and fact. We know the existence of pathogens is a fact; germ theory provides testable explanations concerning the nature of disease. We know the existence of cells is a fact and that cell theory provides testable explanations of how cells function. Similarly, we know evolution is a fact and that evolutionary theories explain biological patterns and mechanisms. The late Stephen Jay Gould said it best: “Evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”

OneEyedJoe

I like this idea. Obviously few theists will be swayed by it, since they will continue to misunderstand what a theory is , and god's existence isn't a theory to them. I guess it's not really a theory to anyone since it isn't fit to be called a theory in the way that evolution is.

My go-to rebuttal when the word theory is used as an argument against evolution is that gravity is also described by physicists as a theory. It's not completely understood, but it's effects are readily visible. The same is true of evolution. I posted something to that effect on here and someone suggested that my point boiled down to "if you don't believe in evolution because it's a theory, you should jump off a cliff."

Brokeback Watchtower

Here is something interesting about the subject from a psychological perspective:

God is unconsious:

https://books.google.com/books?id=VtX0BgAAQBAJ&pg=PA6&lpg=PA6&dq=illusions+delusions+and+apocalyptic+fundamentalism&source=bl&ots=AE_ugvDqP_&sig=kI6LDtZGvRd3UnVSspYoioNwhL0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yNkqVbVPzO6gBLHVgeAI&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=illusions%20delusions%20and%20apocalyptic%20fundamentalism&f=false