I did note that. The implication that there is any type of theory other than a "scientific theory" is exactly what prompted my comment.
Theory, the word, has different meanings. One of them is 'belief'. If you would prefer, I will use that instead.
In the context of a discussion of science, theory has only one meaning. "Belief" describes theism with far more accuracy and precision -- without muddying the difference between theistic belief and, say, the theory of gravitation.
There's no point in rejecting something if you don't have something better to fill its place. The point after all isn't to have something absolutely correct but to have something that explains phenomena and measurements as reliably as possible.
If a hypothesis makes predictions that are falsified by observational data, that is sufficient reason to alter or reject it, even if a better hypothesis has not yet been established. If something claiming to be a hypothesis doesn't even make predictions that can be confirmed or falsified by observational data, it is indistinguishable from shrugging and saying "I don't know."
BUT, Science has failed so far to provide any answer to "where did the universe come from" that is any less improbable; ; if theism was that ridiculous, then any mediocre scientist could come up with theory that is at least a little less improbable. If there is such a theory, I'm not educated about it and would appreciate any and all enlightenment.
Google "Big Bang."
Unlike any theistic assertion ever made, Big Bang theory makes quantifiable predictions borne out by observational data accurately and precisely. As such, it is infinitely more probable than theism -- or any other assertion that makes no quantifiable predictions. What's more, theism requires a belief in the existence of something that is neither observed nor observable and Big Bang theory does not. That, too, makes Big Bang theory infinitely more probable than any theistic assertion ever made.
The fact that most people have trouble understanding the math around why "before the Big Bang" is a meaningless concept does not alter the strength of Big Bang theory, it just means we do a shitty job of teaching people math in this society.
no subject
I did note that. The implication that there is any type of theory other than a "scientific theory" is exactly what prompted my comment.
Theory, the word, has different meanings. One of them is 'belief'. If you would prefer, I will use that instead.
In the context of a discussion of science, theory has only one meaning. "Belief" describes theism with far more accuracy and precision -- without muddying the difference between theistic belief and, say, the theory of gravitation.
There's no point in rejecting something if you don't have something better to fill its place. The point after all isn't to have something absolutely correct but to have something that explains phenomena and measurements as reliably as possible.
If a hypothesis makes predictions that are falsified by observational data, that is sufficient reason to alter or reject it, even if a better hypothesis has not yet been established. If something claiming to be a hypothesis doesn't even make predictions that can be confirmed or falsified by observational data, it is indistinguishable from shrugging and saying "I don't know."
BUT, Science has failed so far to provide any answer to "where did the universe come from" that is any less improbable; ; if theism was that ridiculous, then any mediocre scientist could come up with theory that is at least a little less improbable. If there is such a theory, I'm not educated about it and would appreciate any and all enlightenment.
Google "Big Bang."
Unlike any theistic assertion ever made, Big Bang theory makes quantifiable predictions borne out by observational data accurately and precisely. As such, it is infinitely more probable than theism -- or any other assertion that makes no quantifiable predictions. What's more, theism requires a belief in the existence of something that is neither observed nor observable and Big Bang theory does not. That, too, makes Big Bang theory infinitely more probable than any theistic assertion ever made.
The fact that most people have trouble understanding the math around why "before the Big Bang" is a meaningless concept does not alter the strength of Big Bang theory, it just means we do a shitty job of teaching people math in this society.