What if God..

[PurplePoot]

Eh, well I believe that religion is all theory ^_-. Until it can be proven or dis-proven by standard scientific means, it, to me, will remain always remain a theory ^_-.

When looking at it like a theory, it has a probability of being true based on what is currently known about the universe. Think about that : ).

But it is not a theory in the same context that a scientific theory is a theory.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

-_-
You are misusing the scientific term "theory". Something only becomes a scientific theory when it has been extensively tested and extrapolated upon to prove something new.

 

[Pyritie]

Or mathematical. Math theories are like that too.

 

[Elenai]

With reasonable assurance? See above.

I assume with reasonable assurance, that if I put my hand in a vat of very strong acid that it would hurt. However...I may be wrong, since it might kill my nerves before I feel the pain.

But the other religions also answer those questions.

Not to my satisfaction.

It does have an effect, whether you realize it or not. Since many religious people justify their faith based on spiritual reasons (being often built up when they are too young to think critically), they have been pushed into their religion by their parents and others around them.

And agnostics are the only ones immune to this?

Are there not several people who were 'raised as Christians', only to choose a different faith, or 'lack of belief'?

What about those raised as agnostics/atheists, who chose Christianity, or Islam, or etc?

Then please use a metaphor which doesn't imply that yours is the unquestionably correct answer.

I didn't imply that mine was unquestionably correct. I simply said one of the answers has to be right, I never said which religion, was which equation.

I believe mine is correct. Why should I not make a metaphor that supports my opinion? Why should I dilute my own argument?

 

[PurplePoot]

I assume with reasonable assurance, that if I put my hand in a vat of very strong acid that it would hurt. However...I may be wrong, since it might kill my nerves before I feel the pain.

That doesn't respond to the question.

Not to my satisfaction.

And you failed to explain what that was.

And agnostics are the only ones immune to this?

Are there not several people who were 'raised as Christians', only to choose a different faith, or 'lack of belief'?

What about those raised as agnostics/atheists, who chose Christianity, or Islam, or etc?

The vast majority of agnostics and atheists were raised in religious families, according to numerous polls I've seen people ask on atheist/agnostic sites or sections thereof. Additionally, you cannot be "raised" an agnostic and not question your belief, specifically because as an agnostic you don't have a belief to question, and thus no dogma to adhere to (Atheists, however, can be raised as such).

I didn't imply that mine was unquestionably correct. I simply said one of the answers has to be right, I never said which religion, was which equation.

I believe mine is correct. Why should I not make a metaphor that supports my opinion? Why should I dilute my own argument?

I quote:

And this man has never learned how to add his numbers, and each one says "I am right, the others are wrong", well...the rest of the story is self evident. He can pick one for the sake of picking and be wrong...make a good guess and be wrong...make a lucky guess and be right, or he can do the research and be right.

I fail to see how that implies "supporting your opinion" and not "stating blatantly that you are right."

 

[Nestharus]

-_-
You are misusing the scientific term "theory". Something only becomes a scientific theory when it has been extensively tested and extrapolated upon to prove something new.

Uhm totally wrong but ok... ... just don't respond to my stuff from now on ok Teh_Ephy : ). I'm embarrassed for you : p.

And to PurplePoot, scientific theory is correct : ). Anything that has an answer that hasn't been proven to be true or false is a scientific theory. Anything without an answer is more of a philosophical theory.

 

[Elenai]

That doesn't respond to the question.

Which was? To me you seemed to have asked rhetorically.

Unless you are asking about my reasonable assurances...To list them would require some effort, so I'll have to edit this post or etc when I have finished: Stand by.

And you failed to explain what that was.

Apparently I'll have to list the entirety of a decade of thinking :/

The vast majority of agnostics and atheists were raised in religious families, according to numerous polls I've seen people ask on atheist/agnostic sites or sections thereof. Additionally, you cannot be "raised" an agnostic and not question your belief, specifically because as an agnostic you don't have a belief to question, and thus no dogma to adhere to (Atheists, however, can be raised as such).

That does not exclude the fact, that there are children who are raised as secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists. Especially in Communist lands.

Aside from the point, it was merely a rhetorical point.

Why are those who do not believe always immune to the 'failings' of those who do, simply because their environment has belief, instead of a lack thereof? Why is a person who is raised on a secular structure, not 'forced' and a person raised on a sectarian one 'forced indefinitely'? Why is it that an Agnostic or Atheist 'chose' his path after 'escaping', dis-acknowledging, or leaving spirituality, while a Christian was 'raised and conditioned' into his beliefs? The primary venom behind such a claim being that it was 'against the will of the person who was raised'.

I fail to see how that implies "supporting your opinion" and not "stating blatantly that you are right."

I fail to see where I blatantly stated I was right, and that there was no way I could be wrong.

 

[PurplePoot]

Uhm totally wrong but ok... ... just don't respond to my stuff from now on ok Teh_Ephy : ). I'm embarrassed for you : p.

And to PurplePoot, scientific theory is correct : ). Anything that has an answer that hasn't been proven to be true or false is a scientific theory. Anything without an answer is more of a philosophical theory.

Ephy is actually entirely correct. You, on the other hand, are not. You can't pull something out of your ass and claim it's a scientific theory; it has to have substantial backing, including the ability to predict things accurately that were not already known.

Which was? To me you seemed to have asked rhetorically.

Unless you are asking about my reasonable assurances...To list them would require some effort, so I'll have to edit this post or etc when I have finished: Stand by.

<Early, meh>

My point was that people of other religions would also say and list their reasonable assurances, and I don't see why yours are any more reasonable than theirs.

Apparently I'll have to list the entirety of a decade of thinking :/

If you don't want to provide evidence, you're welcome not to. But evidence out of sight is evidence out of mind.

That does not exclude the fact, that there are children who are raised as secular humanists, agnostics, and atheists. Especially in Communist lands.

Why are those who do not believe always immune to the 'failings' of those who do, simply because their environment has belief, instead of a lack thereof? Why is a person who is raised on a secular structure, not 'forced' and a person raised on a sectarian one 'forced indefinitely'? Why is it that an Agnostic or Atheist 'chose' his path after 'escaping', dis-acknowledging, or leaving spirituality, while a Christian was 'raised and conditioned' into his beliefs? The primary venom behind such a claim being that it was 'against the will of the person who was raised'.

Hence the second half of the paragraph you quoted.

I fail to see where I blatantly stated I was right, and that there was no way I could be wrong.

By using an example with an obviously correct answer (1+1=2) and implying that yours was the correct one, evident after research, slightly derived from the metaphor itself and slightly derived from your comments about extensive research into your faith.

 

[Gilles]

Everyone assumes their religion is the right one without realizing everyone else claims the same thing.

Oh I know everyone claims to have a "true" belief, and I question why I hold to mine all the time. It's something I struggle with, but I've always come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is the "one true, holy, catholic, and apostlic church.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Uhm totally wrong but ok... ... just don't respond to my stuff from now on ok Teh_Ephy : ). [highlight]I'm embarrassed for you : p.[/code]

And to PurplePoot, scientific theory is correct : ). Anything that has an answer that hasn't been proven to be true or false is a scientific theory. Anything without an answer is more of a philosophical theory.

[HIGHLIGHT]YOU
DID
NOT
FUCKING
JUST[/code]
Congratulations, fuckface. You've done it. You have pushed the motherfucking button. Backstory first: I am a very proud human being. It is quite possible that, at my worst, my ego would not fit into the Trump Tower. Four or five separate times now, I have been notified by the staff that I was flaming a little out of control, and I told myself that I would back off. Large rep helps that pride thing. It was working too, because Elenai or someone saved the religious day, and people stopped being completely retarded. AND THEN YOUR MENTALLY DEFICIENT ASS PUSHED THE FUCKING BUTTON. No random fuck lacking the mental faculties to even half-ass research is going to waltz into a discussion that I've done to death and back and then even think about slighting me like that. Like when Elenai was a religious zealot way back when, he at least did his fucking research, biased interpretation of the material or not. But you? Oh, you. What you're thinking of is a scientific postulate. Keep proper terminology in mind the next time you decide to articulate whatever useless shit comes out of that superfluous asshole you have on the front of your head.

These are several sources (two being users that you are also embarrassed for) that show that I am right, and that you are a fucking retard. One of the THW posts is even from this thread, which shows that you are an illiterate fucking retard. Not fucking in a literal sense though, because it's inconceivable that someone as stupid as you could ever have sex. Here we go.

dictionary.com

the·o·ry (thē'ə-rē, thîr'ē) Pronunciation Key
n. pl. the·o·ries

1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.

That's the second set of definitions.

Wikipedia too

Theories are intended to be an accurate, predictive description of the natural world.

That's the start of the last paragraph before the article index.

#
# It is supported by many strands of evidence, rather than a single foundation, ensuring it is probably a good approximation, if not totally correct.

That's listed under essential criteria.

Not Just a Theory Read it.

Oh hey, from this thread too. Nobody is allowed to contest the fact that you are an illiterate dipshit now.

Something that you pull out of your ass is not a scientific theory - this is what gives fundamentalists the idea that scientific theories are just pulled out of one's ass. It has to be backed by substantial evidence, and it has to accurately predict things we didn't already know.

Which Poot just repeated.

But hey, you're right. I do feel embarrassed. Embarrassed that, as a relatively areligious person, I have that in common with something as completely useless as you.

 

[Hakeem]

Circular reasoning again. You believe in christianity because you believe that if you don't then the christian mythology (can't think of a better word) will get you, and you will fail to ascend to the christian heaven, etc.

I'm pretty sure he believes in Christianity for other reasons, and what you perceive as cause is actually an effect.

But you assume that research proves christianity.

Yes, he does, but the analogy works without that assumption. If one of the equations is correct, you can pick one randomly or do research and find which one is correct. Statistics has never been an exact science.

Oh, how I wish everyone was agnostic...

I don't see what it would gain me.

Everyone assumes their religion is the right one without realizing everyone else claims the same thing.

My religion claims much more than what can accurately be described as a singular thing.

 

[Anachron]

Please do not read this if you beleave that hard in your religion

Well, to take part of this lovely discussion, I'm gonna post it.

Well I for myself do NOT beleave in the whole religion-history.
Whatever, there are so many kinds of beleaving, that it MUST be
true that none of the religions is true at all. Do not get me wrong,
but I don't beleave in religion anymore. I was started thinking about
it a couple of years ago and I ended up by giving up beleaving, since
its unnecessary and quite unuseful, and don't gives you a shit back.

Well to go back to topic, I am only beleaving in the whole science-
thing I have thought. Well you know, also sciene can be wrong, because
there is nothing that is 100% of any kind. Well sciene is the direct
enemy to religion, where we will be back to what if god...

God is for me not existing. God can't exist, and for me, he doesn't, he
is still a beleaving. I for myself beleave in that the people (as I have already
read) had the thought to make something to put people together, to
PROTECT the people from defeating themselfes. Well it ended up all
in a stupid discussion whether religion is right or not, which religion is
the truth and which is horrible fail.

So as much I can see of all the religion shit, its past. Its still present but
it doesn't have sense anymore, because the main focus has lost its control.

Honestly, I don't want to change any opinions here, just wanted to tell you my side of beleaving.

Yours faithfully, Anachron

 

[GrandEnder]

God probably looks like a blob of blackness.

 

[PurplePoot]

Warning! This might confuse you or changes your opinion. Better not reading if you are unsure about

That isn't the way to get people to respect your thoughts, not to mention that it's incredibly arrogant.

Well I for myself do NOT beleave in the whole religion-history.
Whatever, there are so many kinds of beleaving, that it MUST be
true that none of the religions is true at all. Do not get me wrong,
but I don't beleave in religion anymore. I was started thinking about
it a couple of years ago and I ended up by giving up beleaving, since
its unnecessary and quite unuseful, and don't gives you a shit back.

I agree with you in that I disagree with religion, but I don't see how that logic fails. To refer back to Elenai's analogy, if you are listed with an infinite number of answers (1+1 = [-∞..∞]), that does not mean that the problem has no solution.

Well to go back to topic, I am only beleaving in the whole science-
thing I have thought. Well you know, also sciene can be wrong, because
there is nothing that is 100% of any kind. Well sciene is the direct
enemy to religion, where we will be back to what if god...

Science is hardly the direct enemy of religion.

God is for me not existing. God can't exist, and for me, he doesn't, he
is still a beleaving. I for myself beleave in that the people (as I have already
read) had the thought to make something to put people together, to
PROTECT the people from defeating themselfes. Well it ended up all
in a stupid discussion whether religion is right or not, which religion is
the truth and which is horrible fail.

How can't a god exist?

--

@Ephy: Lulz

 

[Anachron]

That isn't the way to get people to respect your thoughts, not to mention that it's incredibly arrogant.

I wrote that because I beleave that there are some guys here not older then 13 and which might change their opinion because of other ones thoughts. I am just trying to protect childrends beleavings.

I agree with you in that I disagree with religion, but I don't see how that logic fails. To refer back to Elenai's analogy, if you are listed with an infinite number of answers (1+1 = [-∞..∞]), that does not mean that the problem has no solution.

No, but it means you have to make a solution for yourself.
And mine is that religion is in fact nothing more as a dream of all humans,
just to have something to hold on to.

Science is hardly the direct enemy of religion.

Religion once was befriend with science, but it all went wrong...

How can't a god exist?

HOW should he?

--

@Ephy: Lulz

QTF

My Answer

 

[Gilles]

Religion once was befriend with science, but it all went wrong...

When was that?

 

[PurplePoot]

I wrote that because I beleave that there are some guys here not older then 13 and which might change their opinion because of other ones thoughts. I am just trying to protect childrends beleavings.

Anything in this thread could change peoples' beliefs.

No, but it means you have to make a solution for yourself.
And mine is that religion is in fact nothing more as a dream of all humans,
just to have something to hold on to.

However, your solution could be one that is in line with other people.

Religion once was befriend with science, but it all went wrong...

I get the impression that they are reconciling (in many ways).

HOW should he?

Considering the fact that nothing in our understanding of the universe accounts for creation, god(s) is/are a plausible answer, though not the only one.

 

[Elenai]

My point was that people of other religions would also say and list their reasonable assurances, and I don't see why yours are any more reasonable than theirs.

Why is one method of curing a viral cold more reasonable than the other? It all comes to how well the 'cure' deals with the symptoms. In the end it is all in reality a matter of waiting it out to see what is what. I still may believe my cure is best, because it makes the most sense, and deals with the symptoms (imo) better than the rest, and if I were perhaps more bold, I say it would deal with the whole 'root' of the cold in the first place, but I will limit it to 'symptoms' for the sake of debate.

If you don't want to provide evidence, you're welcome not to. But evidence out of sight is evidence out of mind.

I would be more than happy to repeat many things I have said in other threads, and add large chunks to it. But would anyone be willing to read it, is the question.

Hence the second half of the paragraph you quoted.

You didn't answer the question :/

Why is one environment 'not forcing a belief' when the other 'is', when you have 'secular' homes, vs, 'religious' ones, when they are both influential environments?..being what they are....environments.

By using an example with an obviously correct answer (1+1=2) and implying that yours was the correct one, evident after research, slightly derived from the metaphor itself and slightly derived from your comments about extensive research into your faith.

I never said which equation I picked.

Just because common sense says 1+1=2, doesn't mean that in this scenario, I chose it.

___

I'm embarrassed for you : p.

THAT was clearly a very, very, stupid, egotistical, and backwater minded pile of trolling, NEVER do it again. This is a debate, and you won't demean the intelligence of someone who is clearly superior to you in terms of mental capacity.

I swear, even I am not that arrogant, and I'm the fricken god of arrogance! (I exist!?)

___

When was that?

"Science brings man closer to God"

-Louis Pasteur, discoverer of the Bacterium-

 

[PurplePoot]

Why is one method of curing a viral cold more reasonable than the other, it all comes to how well the 'cure' deals with the symptoms. In the end it is all in reality a matter of waiting it out to see what is what. I still may believe my cure is best, because it makes the most sense, and deals with the symptoms (imo) better than the rest.

If you follow the metaphor.

But seeing as agnostics and atheists do not seem to be diseased in any metaphorical or otherwise sense (after, they are fairly numerous these days, and we're fine), I fail to see how there are "symptoms" that you can evaluate for how well something "cures" them.

I would be more than happy to repeat many things I have said in other threads, and add large chunks to it. But would anyone be willing to read it, is the question.

If you write up a fairly concise summary (I'll give you a page), then I'd be willing to read it.

You didn't answer the question :/

Why is one environment 'not forcing a belief' when the other 'is', when you have 'secular' homes, vs, 'religious' ones?

It is not. Read the second half of the paragraph you quoted; I addressed that.

I never said which equation I picked.

Just because common sense says 1+1=2, doesn't mean that in this scenario, I chose it.

But it was quite implied.

 

[Anachron]

Anything in this thread could change peoples' beliefs.

Yeah true, but an anti-religion opinion is way more stronger to change as the I don't beleave in <this> religion.

However, your solution could be one that is in line with other people

Yeah, but maybe not. Since there is no global solution, you need to beleave your own.

I get the impression that they are reconciling (in many ways).

Yupp.. Sometimes they are, sometimes they are not. Anyway, there is only one that will last to the end. And thats science, as it is the humans natural attribute to research where they live into.

Considering the fact that nothing in our understanding of the universe accounts for creation, god(s) is/are a plausible answer, though not the only one.

Well, considering to the fact that we do not know anything, because every sense, every feeling, everything is interpreted in other ways by every brain its most logical that you will never able to give a global solution for beleaving. I do not beleave in, because GOD must in fact be something like the universe. I beleave in the universe, but not in god. God would never be something touchable. And if hes untouchable, you will have no solution to prove that hes existing. So my beleaving is maybe the better one, for now.

I have to go further on that I have a totally diffrent sight of the universe as normal humans have. I can't see how everyone beleaves that the world is that what its meant to be. Anyway, before I will post something epic long here, I'll stop.

 

[Elenai]

But seeing as agnostics and atheists do not seem to be diseased in any metaphorical or otherwise sense (after, they are fairly numerous these days, and we're fine), I fail to see how there are "symptoms" that you can evaluate for how well something "cures" them.

Everyone has germs and viral entities in their bodies, Agnostics and Atheists are no exception

If you write up a fairly concise summary (I'll give you a page), then I'd be willing to read it.

Give me some time to compile it.

It is not. Read the second half of the paragraph you quoted; I addressed that.

What of those 'raised in secular homes'? That is what I asked.

Also, the very point that many agnostics and atheists were raised in religious homes gives me an inkling of an idea that 'being raised' religious doesn't mean 'you are', or 'will become' religious...

But it was quite implied.

But I still left the door wide open. Just because common sense implies something, doesn't mean the concept I laid out isn't correct.

 

[PurplePoot]

Everyone has germs and viral entities in their bodies, Agnostics and Atheists are no exception

And everyone dies of them. Christians are no exception.

What of those 'raised in secular homes'? That is what I asked.

Also, the very point that many agnostics and atheists were raised in religious homes gives me an inkling of an idea that 'being raised' religious doesn't mean 'you are', or 'will become' religious...

I did address that -

Additionally, you cannot be "raised" an agnostic and not question your belief, specifically because as an agnostic you don't have a belief to question, and thus no dogma to adhere to (Atheists, however, can be raised as such).

But I still left the door wide open. Just because common sense implies something, doesn't mean the concept I laid out isn't correct.

Then at least try to remove such implications from your metaphors - they don't exactly endear you to the other side of the debate.

 

[Elenai]

And everyone dies of them. Christians are no exception.

Did I say we are not affected by our germs?

I did address that -

But you did not, because you can be raised as a secular humanist, or agnostic. Agnosticism is but the belief that one does not know either way. It isn't a magical middle ground where everyone is immune to its influence.

If you can influence a person to believe, or not believe, you can influence them to accept a middle ground status.

Then at least try to remove such implications from your metaphors - they don't exactly endear you to the other side of the debate.

Why should I dilute my argument? Especially when the implication is very loose at best.

 

[PurplePoot]

Did I say we are not affected by our germs?

So then how does your "cleansing" metaphor relate to anything if you aren't actually... cleansed?

But you did not, because you can be raised as a secular humanist, or agnostic. Agnosticism is but the belief that one does not know either way. It isn't a magical middle ground where everyone is immune to its influence.

If you can influence a person to believe, or not believe, you can influence them to accept a middle ground status.

I'd like you to detail how one accepts that they cannot know the answer of something without thinking a good deal about it. After all, humanity is always seeking answers.

Why should I dilute my argument? Especially when the implication is very loose at best.

If removing arbitrary implications from your arguments dilutes them, then your arguments are invalid since they rely on trickery and not reason.

 

[Elenai]

So then how does your "cleansing" metaphor relate to anything if you aren't actually... cleansed?

The same way taking medicine, or eating chicken soup helps you get better. We still have the anti-bodies though, and still get sick.

I'd like you to detail how one accepts that they cannot know the answer of something without thinking a good deal about it. After all, humanity is always seeking answers.

>Daddy, does God exist?

>I don't know, and we can never know.

>Should I believe in him?

>I wouldn't believe until it was proven to me. For now, we simply don't know.

>Okay daddy.

If removing arbitrary implications from your arguments dilutes them, then your arguments are invalid since they rely on trickery and not reason.

My argument isn't trickery. I did not say which equation I chose, or which equation was which belief. The argument still stands because it is reasonable. Afterall...I am horrible with math...I could chose the wrong equation even after research...

"You can pick at random and be wrong, pick at random and be right, or do the research and be right. Or...perhaps numbers don't exist at all, being 'inventions of mankind' used to quantify amount, and no one is right. However, with reasonable assurance we can assume one of the equations will be logically right."

 

[PurplePoot]

The same way taking medicine, or eating chicken soup helps you get better. We still have the anti-bodies though, and still get sick.

Hmm?

>Daddy, does God exist?

>I don't know, and we can never know.

>Should I believe in him?

>I wouldn't believe until it was proven to me. For now, we simply don't know.

>Okay daddy.

Do you have evidence for that actually happening? In my experience, kids always bug you for answers, hence why you say "Storks bring babies" (or that you were a Blue Light Special at KMart) - or related descriptions based on the question - to questions you don't want to answer.

My argument isn't trickery. I did not say which equation I chose, or which equation was which belief. The argument still stands because it is reasonable. Afterall...I am horrible with math...I could chose the wrong equation even after research...

"You can pick at random and be wrong, pick at random and be right, or do the research and be right. Or...perhaps numbers don't exist at all, being 'inventions of mankind' used to quantify amount, and no one is right. However, with reasonable assurance we can assume one of the equations will be logically right."

By saying "do research and be right" along with you having "done research", I don't see how you can see that as anything other than implication that you are right.

 

[Elenai]

Hmm?

We are still affected by our germs, (flaws) even if we are Christians. Some can die from these flaws. (perhaps, falling out, abandoning the faith, getting into various bad habits, literally dying, etc, etc, negative things.)

However, we can still be 'cured/purified/help' the cold by taking our medicine, or doing things to help the cold. (salvation, praying for forgiveness, etc)

And we still have the anti-bodies from the cold/flaw/sin, and learn from our mistakes.

Thus we are 'cured/purified' but we still have the reminders, and the ability to fight back. (anti-bodies :])

Do you have evidence for that actually happening? In my experience, kids always bug you for answers, hence why you say "Storks bring babies" (or that you were a Blue Light Special at KMart) - or related descriptions based on the question - to questions you don't want to answer.

It was just a loose example...

By saying "do research and be right" along with you having "done research", I don't see how you can see that as anything other than implication that you are right.

I did do the research, and I do believe with reasonable assurance I am right. The key words are 'believe' and 'reasonable assurance'. I could be wrong, then again...so can everyone who answers the equation.

I could have done the research, and picked 1+1=3....who's to say I didn't? Or maybe I got it right and picked the right equation 1+1=2.

1+1=2 is NOT any specific faith in this metaphor, or any specific answer. I did not state what equations were what, and I did not imply that any where.

To be honest...I believe you are grafting implications on what has no implications to begin with, simply because the equation was simple, and the answer already known, but that was not the point of using 1+1.

 

[Nestharus]

For Ephy-

I used the term scientific theory because there is a definite answer for various religions. However, I was leaning towards philosophical theory (because I wasn't sure that everybody would understand where I was coming from), which is probably a better descriptor for all religions at this time. Under article 2, I expand on this.


1- A theory doesn't have to be constantly tested. Anyone can come up with any sort of theory for any reason. However, some theories have a higher probability of being true over others -.-. Scientific theories are, over time, tested and what not, and are at one point proven to be laws or proven to be false. The more a theory is tested, the more viable it is to be true. Honestly, I don't need to be preached to about terms I already know... and I don't need to do bloody research on what I already know; that's just asinine and is a complete waste of time.

2- Because religions aren't proven, they are theory. Also, because religions and what not in most cases try to tell people how they should live, they are also philosophies. However, in my previous post I didn't go over that portion because the thread wasn't really talking about that : D.

Now, I will rebuttal my statement of religions being scientific theories. I was using a broader definition in that scientific theories always have a definite answer and philosophical theories don't have a definite answer. I'm doing this only because there is no real scientific fact backing up these theories, so this really pushes them into a philosophical area. However, they are only considered philosophical theories at this time because of this very reason and furthermore, they will eventually become scientific theories....

3-
The fact is that when looked in proper context, you trying to say that I was pulling something out of my *** makes no sense. I know what you are referring to, but the reality is that it is a false statement...... unless you would like to argue that I just made up religion.

Final Notes-
At this time, religion is really regarded as a philosophy, which is what I stated above. In reality, at this time, it is all philosophical theory, which is also what I stated above. However, in a broader view of things, it is really scientific theory because as more is understood about the universe, more will be understood about the truth to any given religion, and thus, based on scientific evidence, an answer will be given.

I hope I have made myself clear so that there is no more confusion to what I am stating. Obviously, I can no longer assume that people can view things in a broad perspective. This assumption led to turmoil ; ).

Also, I did no research for this. Why? I already know about this, so I don't have to do research.

And finally, I know someone who has studied various religions for a long time and he agreed with my statement. In fact, he majored in religion and nuclear engineering and has a master's degree in both. He also happens to be quite religious =), but he agreed that from the viewpoint of the world and from a viewpoint of science or philosophy, religion is theory : ).

I'm not going to say you are wrong again because I know that will make you upset, but I hope you can at least determine for yourself now whether you are right or wrong at this point.

Honestly, I was just hoping to bring up a few interesting questions regarding the topic to see how people would respond : ), but you kind of killed that at this point.

And please note that I am not stating these things as opinions, but as sound facts ^_-.

 

[Anachron]

Why doesn't nobody reply to my last answer?

 

[Nestharus]

To Anachron-
It is good that you stated that as opinion : ), and can't really respond to opinions : D.

Opinions are our own to have ^_-.

However, there is one flaw in your opinion. You said you can't have 100% for anything, but you said there is no chance that god exists. =), you should go fix ;p.

Either you can have a 100% chance for something, or there is a chance that god exists.

 

[Anachron]

Uh no, I mean there isn't a chance for 100% to be true, but to be false it can go up to 100%.

 

[Nestharus]

lol.... so how can you know that something is 100% false without any proof showing that it is true or false? : )

 

[Anachron]

Well what you say to someone who thinks that we do not exist, would you say hes wrong??? ^^

 

[Nestharus]

You just refuted your own opinion from your initial post ^_-

Oh and in response to your question:
I think therefor I am

So yes, I would say that that person was wrong : )

 

[Anachron]

Nope, I am still in what I am saying. I meant you can't know if its 100% sure from being true, but it can everytime be bad for 100%. You just didn't understood what I was trying to say. Anyway we stop this know. THx

 

[Nestharus]

You obviously don't understand what I meant when I said your original post (the one about god not existing) : ).

However, going over it further, I suppose that there would have to be a being there to state that it does exist, so in that regard, it would change into a probability of existing or not existing, and in that regard, you didn't quite destroy your initial opinion.

However, if there was a being and you told it that it didn't exist, that would be quite funny : D.

So I suppose I will take back my initial comment of you unraveling your initial opinion, but that example given wasn't a great one in the context of the debate

And food for thought:
Statements can be looked at from a false perspective or a true perspective: It is true that this is false or it is false that this is true. Any statement can be reversed to say the same thing. Thus, what you said cannot be true because it would have to be the same both ways ; ). I wasn't going to say that as a response because I wanted to have some fun, but seeing as this is over, I might as well break up all of your arguments ^^.

good game : D (thinks to himself, "I should really be on a speech and debate team o-o")


Oh well, it was fun; come back soon ^_-

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I used the term scientific theory because there is a definite answer for various religions. However, I was leaning towards philosophical theory (because I wasn't sure that everybody would understand where I was coming from), which is probably a better descriptor for all religions at this time. Under article 2, I expand on this.

So don't be a stupid fuck (not that you can help being what you are) and say you mean "scientific theory" if you mean "philosophical theory".

1- A theory doesn't have to be constantly tested. Anyone can come up with any sort of theory for any reason. However, some theories have a higher probability of being true over others -.-. Scientific theories are, over time, tested and what not, and are at one point proven to be laws or proven to be false. The more a theory is tested, the more viable it is to be true. Honestly, I don't need to be preached to about terms I already know... and I don't need to do bloody research on what I already know; that's just asinine and is a complete waste of time.

Factually incorrect, again proving that you are an illiterate dipshit. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home, which Pyritie posted earlier in the thread, contradicts you. PurplePoot contradicts you. If I wanted, I could get on MSN and bug MySpaceBarBroke, brad.dude03, and Shados to all contradict you. As it were, half of chat is basically telling me to drop it because you're a dipshit and I'm right anyways.

2- Because religions aren't proven, they are theory. Also, because religions and what not in most cases try to tell people how they should live, they are also philosophies. However, in my previous post I didn't go over that portion because the thread wasn't really talking about that : D.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

Now, I will rebuttal my statement of religions being scientific theories. I was using a broader definition in that scientific theories always have a definite answer and philosophical theories don't have a definite answer. I'm doing this only because there is no real scientific fact backing up these theories, so this really pushes them into a philosophical area. However, they are only considered philosophical theories at this time because of this very reason and furthermore, they will eventually become scientific theories....

The phrase "scientific theory" has clear and definite meanings, making up your own makes you look like the stupid fuck that you are anyways. Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

3-
The fact is that when looked in proper context, you trying to say that I was pulling something out of my *** makes no sense. I know what you are referring to, but the reality is that it is a false statement...... unless you would like to argue that I just made up religion.

lol, context. More proof that you're an illiterate dipshit, and look who's talking. I in no way even implied that you were pulling religion out of your ass, I was providing posts of other, respectable, people with close or exact definitions of scientific theory to mine.

Final Notes-
At this time, religion is really regarded as a philosophy, which is what I stated above. In reality, at this time, it is all philosophical theory, which is also what I stated above. However, in a broader view of things, it is really scientific theory because as more is understood about the universe, more will be understood about the truth to any given religion, and thus, based on scientific evidence, an answer will be given.

Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

I hope I have made myself clear so that there is no more confusion to what I am stating. Obviously, I can no longer assume that people can view things in a broad perspective. This assumption led to turmoil ; ).

No, you being a stupid fuck that doesn't know terminology lead to turmoil.

And finally, I know someone who has studied various religions for a long time and he agreed with my statement. In fact, he majored in religion and nuclear engineering and has a master's degree in both. He also happens to be quite religious =), but he agreed that from the viewpoint of the world and from a viewpoint of science or philosophy, religion is theory : ).

But not a scientific theory. Learn your terminology you retarded fuck.

[HIGHLIGHT]I'm not going to say you are wrong again because I know that will make you upset[/code], but I hope you can at least determine for yourself now whether you are right or wrong at this point.

It took exactly one idiotic and egoistic statement for me to become sick and fucking tired of your stupid ass encroaching your ill-perceived superiority upon me. And look, here's another one. Do not heavily fucking imply something in the same sentence that you won't outright say it. Grow a fucking pair, and learn to fucking read. According to dictionary.com, my definition of scientific theory is right, and yours is wrong.

Also, I did no research for this. Why? I already know about this, so I don't have to do research.

...

And please note that I am not stating these things as opinions, but as sound facts ^_-.

good game : D (thinks to himself, "I should really be on a speech and debate team o-o")

List of reasons why you would be the last person I would ever take on a debate team:

• You just praised yourself, in a completely serious manner.
• You are an illiterate, retarded fuck.
• You've admitted you don't do research on things that you "already know".
• You don't do research into contradicting points, because you "know" what you're talking about so well.
• Going along with that last point, you don't even look at the other person's information and sources. I had four with definitions of scientific theory, and you're still posting your own retarded version of what it means.
• You are an illiterate, retarded fuck. This was repeated for emphasis.

Don't make me fucking repeat myself a third time. Try to think just a little before you articulate the useless shit that comes out of that asshole you have on the front of your face.

 

[Hakeem]

@Opinions, proof: (Anachron, Nesthrus)
Some things can be proven, some things can be disproven, others can be neither. It really depends on what you're trying to prove or disprove.

@Theory: (Nestharus)
When specifying "scientific theory," be sure to use the prefix "scientific." Otherwise it's just a theory, like in the term "conspiracy theory." Scientific theory != theory.

@Implication: (Elenai, Poot)
Oh. Good. Elenai already said it.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

@Theory: (Ephy, Nestharus)
When specifying "scientific theory," be sure to use the prefix "scientific." Otherwise it's just a theory, like in the term "conspiracy theory." Scientific theory != theory.

Except he's prefixing regular "theory" with "scientific" whenever he fucking feels like it, to try to make himself look like he isn't a completely retarded fuck.

 

[Nestharus]

At the moment, it can't be proven true or false, which makes it a philosophical theory, which is what I stated earlier. However, as time progresses, the definite answer will be given proving it to be either true or false, which makes it turn to, in the end, a scientific theory (there are quite a few reasons why I use the term scientific). When looking at it from a broad perspective, scientific theory is more appropriate. When looking at it from a perspective of the current times, philosophical theory is more appropriate. It wouldn't be a conspiracy theory =), and I shouldn't have to go into why that is : P.

I've stated this multiple times now, lol.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

And there the retarded fuck goes again.

Read this fucking website:
Evolution is Not Just a Theory: home

 

[Nestharus]

That website is wrong though -.-, and it's also a .com site, so it's not like it has a 100% chance of being right /sigh... I'm only saying it is wrong because it only lists one of 6 definitions.

Scientific theories are plausible explanations. They aren't regarded as truth or not, jeezes. I could counteract that website with a whole slew of other websites, many of them being .gov websites. You are confusing scientific law with scientific theory.... frankly, I'm starting to become frustrated ; ).

And anyhow, as I keep stating, at the moment, in regards to these times, it's a philosophical theory, but over time it will be a scientific theory. To say otherwise is absolutely idiotic... lol... and eventually, it will become a law =). The law will state that it is true that is false or true : D.


So let me draw the road map for everyone to see-
1. Philosophical Theory (many people use the term critical theory when studying philosophy instead of this ^_-. However, this is a broader term).

2. Scientific Theory (will always eventually come to this, and that is why I used this instead of philosophical)

3. Law (the law can either be true or false)


And as I keep saying again and again and again, ... ... i used scientific because this has a definite answer -.-. Anything with a definite answer will turn into a scientific theory stating that it is either true or false. It will eventually turn into a law stating that it is true or false. Things that remain philosophical theories are things without any sort of definite answer.

This has a definite answer, therefor this will eventually turn into a scientific theory, and so for discussion, in my own opinion, it is more appropriate to use the term "scientific theory" as we are not discussing anything having to relate to the current times. We are discussing an overall idea, which is timeless. If you were to state in the thread what if the idea of god existing or not existing was this during such and such a time period (including this one), then yes, you would be 100% right in saying that scientific theory is not a proper use for this. However, because that was not stated, either scientific theory or philosophical theory can be used. This is because it allows people to view it in whatever time period they want. Now, because I already stated that I'm viewing this in a broader area, more like a timeless time period, I'm using the term scientific. You cannot argue this point, it's impossible. The only way you can possibly be right is by this discussion being limited to a certain period of time. Because it is not, you can't continue to argue against it because eventually, if humans continue to exist, an answer will be given by way of science. With tests and what not, it will turn into a theory that is widely accepted, and eventually, it will turn into a law.

Now the site you gave is stupid because it states that something that is theory is really as close to true as it can get in the world of science. What about the "law" of gravity? The "law" of relativity (yes it is a law now, and if you seriously want to argue that point, go ahead. I heard this from a PhD in physics who always reads the latest developments). Now seriously, give it a rest already and let everyone get on with their lives : ).

And by the way, once again, I haven't done any research : ). Actually, from above, it'd be more proper to say .edu sites instead of .gov sites ; ).

Actually, since I know you'll just say w/e for me not doing any research (because I haven't needed to do any research yet to rebuttal your claims) I'm going to just go to a .edu site really fast and paste something.

Here we go:
A scientific theory is a deductive theory, in that, its content is based on some formal system of logic and that some of its elementary theorems are taken as axioms. In a deductive theory, any sentence which is a logical consequence of one or more of the axioms is also a sentence of that theory.[3]


Using this, some religions are scientific theory and some are philosophical theory for this time period. You heard right, this time period, so even if you attempted to try and say we are obviously talking about this era, I can still say that some are already like that and even started like that.

Unless you pull out a miracle, you've already lost this debate.

Final Note-
Religions during this time that can be considered scientific theory really stretch it, lol...

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Jesus Christ. Wikipedia, dictionary.com, a handful of users, and that website all contradict you. The website is the easiest and most comprehensive example. If you think you can contradict it with .govs, go ahead.

Also, the website addresses that law versus theory thing: Law is the what, theory is the how. The law of gravity is that matter is attracted to other matter. The theory of gravity is that matter bends space, and other matter is attracted into the warped area.

 

[leet.firefox]

That website is wrong though -.-, and it's also a .com site, so it's not like it has a 100% chance of being right /sigh...

wikipedia is dot org, therefore it must be 100% true according to your logic

 

[Nestharus]

What i stated was that .com sites can't generally be relied upon. I said nothing about any other site. Saying .com sites can't be relied on doesn't mean every other site can. Really, unless something is without a doubt true, it can never be relied upon : ).

Also that thing on theory and law are wrong definitions. The right definition is that law is proven true and can be taken for granted. Theory is plausible.

Here are some broad definitions for you:
Philosophical Theory- Something can't be proven true or false (this includes things with definite answers).

Scientific Theory- Theory that builds up from an axiom using logic (anything with a definite answer will eventually turn into this. A theory always asserts something is true, whether that something true is saying that something else is true or false ie- It is true that this is false, or it is true that this is true).

Law- Any scientific theory that has been proven to be completely true and is taken for granted.

Conspiracy Theory- A special type of theory in which a group or individual or w/e is working to some illegal thing, lol. The fact that someone bought this up was funny, but I'm saying the definition here in case anyone actually thinks that religions are conspiracy theories. The act of creating a religion may be a conspiracy theory, the idea created cannot be a conspiracy theory. It turns into one of the types of theories above.


Now, anything with a definite answer has the possibility of turning into a scientific theory. In fact, as long as science progresses, it will always, in a matter of time, turn into a scientific theory. This scientific theory may prove it to be false or true. Eventually, it will turn into a law which states that without a doubt, this is true or false.

The only difference between a scientific theory and a philosophical theory is that scientific theories are built off of axioms and philosophical theories are built from ideas.

Now, I have realized that I cannot state that religion is theory. I can state that the theoretical parts of religions (parts with definite answers) are theory, and when looked at from a timeless perspective, are scientific theories. The reason I cannot state that religion is theory is because of a valid point a friend of mine brought up. Remember when I said religions have 2 parts: Philosophy and Theoretical, well... Because religion in a whole is these 2 parts, it cannot and will never be able to be classified as a theory. The only religions that can be classified as theory are religions that are purely theoretical. Any religion with any philosophy on something (how to live, how to eat, etc) cannot be theory : ).

Now, moving on, in this I must change my statement to only entail the theoretic part of religion. Now, I did somewhat imply this when I initially posted (when I talked about the philosophy part), but I didn't state it out right, and in my use of the word religion, I was entailing, without meaning to, all aspects of religion (the theoretical and philosophical parts). In this respect, I was wrong : ), but nobody here even caught that, lol... shame on all of you ;p

 

[TheDivineBoss]

PowNed. God is no member. We only believe if we could see it, smell it, hear it or hold it.

My words for you this night.

 

[PurplePoot]

No, laws are not proven theories. Laws are theories which take into account a single, basic premise.

For example:

The Law of Gravity - One basic premise, though still unproven, it has been tested and seems to work. Also predicts things not yet observed.
Quantum Theory - Many complex premises, though still unproven, have been tested and seem to work. Also predicts things not yet observed.

(Concise definition

A scientific law is a concise verbal or mathematical statement of a relation that is always under the same conditions. Only after numerous experiments by many scientists over an extended period of time can a hypothesis become a scientific law.

Some sources claim a law is true, but the fundamental nature of science disproves them. Not even gravity is proven, although it is likely.

 

[Elenai]

Nestharus: I have to say...I am not particularly keen on the thought of you being as brilliant at debating as you seem to believe...

First of all...you don't really make any sense and tend to drone on...and are rather distracting with all the ^_-'s...and you have a tenancy to not get to the point...Please in the future 'condense' your self to a more accessible point. Use quote tags, and please...For my sake, don't be so...'hoity toity'...I can, and will, beat you in any fight of arrogance you can throw, so...best not to be arrogant to others in my presence.

And a note on your attitude: You really, really, REALLY are not particularly good at debating on equal terms.

We are not your students. Things like:

-I am embarrassed for you

-but nobody here even caught that, lol... shame on all of you ;p

-Unless you pull out a miracle, you've already lost this debate.

Are not welcome. I learned this the hard way.

___

As for your content...what exactly are you trying to say? I see the words theory, being thrown around, and philosophical theory being equated with religion, and scientific theory being...well...I'm not even sure what you are trying to say :/

And there is something you should know concerning theories, since from what I can gather from Teh_Ephy's responses, you don't know what a theory is.

"A hypothesis = a guess."

"A theory = essentially proven, with a few loose ends on 'the hows'"

"A law = pretty much covered."

Religion you equate with Philosophical theory...this is not correct. Religion and Philosophy are not the same thing, and infact, religion 'stands above' philosophy as a larger being. Religion encompasses philosophy, lifestyle, beliefs, culture, scientific thought, heck...even how someone interacts with their cat! Philosophy is a cog in the clock with lots of different spokes. You cannot say that religion, being a clock, is the cog.

 

[Nestharus]

Ok this one goes to poot- It isn't quantum theory, it's quantum law thank you very much : ).

I'll go on for a more clarified definition of law now. I've already defined scientific and philosophical theory as best as they can be defined, but I'll redefine them here so that everyone can see the entire picture. Also, let it be noted that there are 6 definitions I believe for scientific theory. This is the base definition. All of the other definitions are special cases to this definition.

Once again, the very basic definition of theories-
Philosophical Theory- Based on ideas
Scientific Theory- Based on axioms

A scientific theory just needs to be plausible. If it's proven, it becomes a law....

When used in the terms of science, plausibility is generally a result of constant testing. Once the tests have all been affirmed to be accurate, the theory then turns into a law. However, it does not have to be tested in any way and does not have to meet any special requirements to be a scientific theory. The definitions I gave above are the only requirements to become one of the two types of theories.

The basic definition of Laws-
When a theory is regarded as true.
-For those of you who might twist this about, this is done with proof (not the geometric kind ;p).

Anne Marie Helmenstine, Ph.D

There is no 'proof' or absolute 'truth' in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is 'proof' in science.

To Elanai:
I literally just said this...
Religion, as a whole, includes a philosophical part and a theoretical part. Also, I don't quite know what you are even referring to when you said that I said that religion is a part of philosophy. Maybe you read something wrong or I don't know, because I never said that. I've been constantly saying over and over again what I just said: Religion has 2 parts.

Another thing, to get the entire scope of this debate, you'd have to read from the very first post ^_-. I know I'm not really using quotes, too lazy, lol...


Final Notes-
Turning the theoretical portion of religion into philosophical theory (which it is).

The theoretical portion of religion is philosophical theory at this time. Why is this so? Because it is based on ideas. These ideas can come from anywhere and don't have to be based on anything else.

ie- If you are bad you will go to hell

The example above is a common philosophical theory for many western religions based on the idea of the religion's standards for bad and the religions punishment for being bad.

Turning it into a scientific theory-
A scientific theory is built from an axiom. As time progresses, more and more will be known about the universe. As a result of this, answers will begin to be given to older theories so that they can be proven to be laws.

Let's say that with a technology, humanity has discovered a hell and has confirmed it to be the hell described by many religions (I am not very religious, I am just using this as an example). Now let's look back at our original example. It mentions hell, but it is still a philosophical theory because it has never been observed.

Someone bad dies and they appear in hell

Still a theory

Someone else bad dies and they appear in hell

A bit more plausible now

Bad people continue dying and they always appear in hell

Now it's a law. The law would simply state-
If you are a bad person you will go to hell.

Now, please don't break this apart and say that bad is a matter of perspective. The perspective I am using for bad is the religion in question. From here, we can actually start to define what bad is.

If they murdered someone, they go to hell, so murdering must be bad
If they did this, they go to hell, so this must be bad

I mean, I could go on, but this is the basic idea I was presenting before that the theoretical portion of religion can equate to scientific theory over time. I also explained at an earlier time that I opted to use the word scientific over the word philosophical because as technology progresses, anything with a definitive answer that is a philosophical theory will eventually turn into a scientific theory. Eventually, this scientific theory will become a law of some sort.

Now, to expound on theories and laws a bit... I don't ever really see any law or theory that says something is false. This is because when something becomes false, it's not generally said to be a theory anymore. However, it is still a theory/law, the theory/law simply state that when this occurs, this won't happen.

Now, I hope everyone understands now so we can finally move on. Yes, this time I did research because I'm obviously not going to get through to you guys on my word alone.

Here are some more quotes-
The definition of a scientific theory

The Standard Sketch-
The standard sketch of scientific theories-and I emphasize the word "sketch"-
runs something like the following. A scientific theory consists of two parts.
One part is an abstract logical calculus. In addition to the vocabulary of logic, this
calculus includes the primitive symbols of the theory, and the logical structure of the theory
is fixed by stating the axioms or postulates of the theory in terms of its primitive symbols.
For many theories, the primitive symbols will be thought of as theoretical terms like "electron"
or "particle" that are not possible to relate in any simple way to observable phenomena.
The second part of the theory is a set of rules that assign an empirical content to the logical
calculus by providing what are usually called "co-ordinating definitions" or "empirical interpretations"
for at least some of the primitive and defined symbols of the calculus. It is always emphasized that the
first part alone is not sufficient to define a scientific theory, for without a systematic specification
of the intended empirical interpretation of the theory, it is not possible in any sense to evaluate the
the theory as a part of science, although it can be studied simply as a piece of pure mathematics.

This follows and then expands on my basic definition of scientific theory by including 2 parts, the logical part and the definitive part.

Next one:
Laws

While there is a general agreement that a scientific law includes
a generalization, there is no agreement as to whether or not it includes
anything else. The apoplectic language in which we frequently express
scientific laws (e.g. "Mixtures of hydrogen and oxygen must explode if an
electric spark occurs in the mixture") tends to make us think that they assert
something over and above the mere constant conjunction which would be asserted
in the corresponding generalization; and philosophers have propounded views
according to which the extra something is a logical relation analogous to
that holding between premises and conclusion in deductive inference, or a
relation of activity analogous to that occurring in volition, or a quite
specific relation not analogous to anything else. But in two hundred years
since Hume preached the doctrine that there is not this extra something (except
a psycho-logical fact about the association of ideas or beliefs in the mind of
a person believing the law), the main reason that has made many philosophers
develop other views in their sense of the inadequacy of a constant conjunction
theory along Hume's lines. So there would seem to be no need to consider
views which make scientific laws more than statements of constant conjunction
if an adequate constant conjunction view can be maintained.

The above talks about the single constant conjunction which I presented with my example of Christianity's Hell.

I'm not really going to go over philosophical theory because I think everyone can agree with that.

Now, the above basic definitions I gave in my list are the absolute basic definitions. They can be expanded on, special cases can be looked at, and etc.

Oh also, there is a slight hole up in my thing up above. First it goes from a philosophical theory (considering that what we are talking about has already built up quite a bit) to a hypothesis based on the observations made on scientific advancements to a theory (is it generally true or false?) to a law (true or false).

 

[PurplePoot]

Ok this one goes to poot- It isn't quantum theory, it's quantum law thank you very much : ).

No, some of the basic principles are laws. The overall structure is a theory.

A scientific theory just needs to be plausible. If it's proven, it becomes a law....

When used in the terms of science, plausibility is generally a result of constant testing. Once the tests have all been affirmed to be accurate, the theory then turns into a law. However, it does not have to be tested in any way and does not have to meet any special requirements to be a scientific theory. The definitions I gave above are the only requirements to become one of the two types of theories.

No, no, no. It has to contribute something original, so as to prevent you from making up theories to explain what you already know rather than making up theories that can explain what you don't know based on what you know.

The basic definition of Laws-
When a theory is regarded as true.
-For those of you who might twist this about, this is done with proof (not the geometric kind ;p).

We haven't proved the laws. Take gravity for example. If anything, it's the least certain of all the forces, because we have no idea what's going on.

<Blah blah blah hell stuff>

As I said above, explaining what you already observe is easy and unscientific. I could say that stuff gravitates towards mass because the FSM and the IPU are trying to counteract entropy - and it would work - but it wouldn't make any sense.