Shadowy Man

Well, there's no point in arguing definitions of words.

7thangel

Oh please. I am just following your line of argument. And if you come to undertand, yes it is funny indeed.

7thangel

Well, the theory of Darwin that man evolved from ape is a theory. Although I see a lot of people "monkeying" around, Darwin's theory is still a theory to me.

Bill Snedden

Ahem...

Darwin's theory does NOT include anything about man evolving from an ape...

This is a common misconception, but in actuality Darwinism holds that man and apes evolved from a common ancestor.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Shadowy Man

Well, aerodynamics is still a theory too, but I bet you don't have a problem with it when you get on an airplane.

Solid state physics has theories too, but it doesn't seem to interfere with your ability to type on your computer.

General relativity is a theory, but those GPS sensors seem to do pretty well.

Hell, even electromagnetism is a theory.

I think the fact that the theory of evolution is a "theory" shouldn't in any way reflect on its veracity or usefulness.

There's a big difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Brother Fred

I think he was referring to another Keith.

Fred

Brother Fred

I don't see how and why atheism would necessarily have to explain anything; it's merely the absence of theism. I think its a categorical mistake to ask such a question of atheism.


Fred

7thangel

How come I never read such facts?

Thank you for correcting me.

Subtle Progression

How come I never read such facts?

Probably because you're looking in all the wrong places.

7thangel

I understand what you are saying, but in general, and I have to admit too, that I also speak of theories with regards to God. Scientist had experienced their theories, and for most of these theories I surely believe and never thought it to be against the concept of godhead. Their are natural evidences and reasonable need of the existence of God, unfortunately you may have not experienced it, or just deny it. This is my point.

Now, you have to realize that hoping have a great value in the discussion. For of the truth, is that we ask of the purpose of the truth we are seeking for? In reality, there is not only existence that is being questioned in search of truth, but also of the meaning of existence, and of why should we believe that eternal life is good, and worth hoping for. Now we have experiences and reasonable evidences that man is not capable to give us these things. But still, in fairness to you, these are still theories.

So now, what is the point of you promoting a theory that there is no God when the very essence of us in finding the truth is actually denied, by brushing away the very essence of finding the truth: as one of the atheist ask, and note that it got 4 stars of his post, "To believe in a universe that is under the guidance of a divine power, in my opinion, is far more reassuring than believing in a random universe that is without divine guidance. " Are we therefore, in search of truth, asking how many stars? what makes night and day? how much glasses of water should a man take a day? what makes the stars shine in blue green and red? etc. No, we also need reassurance. And the need for reassurance does not speak solely of understanding the nature around us. Far more than just having knowledge, that I guess, given far more examination, the atheist should admit in their search of truth.

On the other hand, in support of the doctrine of predestination, God had made us to rely on faith, or maybe you can call faith a theory because faith is actually similar to theory. Faith still stands as speculation because it is founded on hope because we do not have the full knowledge of the matter of godhead. Because if we are in our own power have the ability to know all the truth, then God have no reason at all to predestine any man.