Cris,
Theists claim god is real and has a profound affect on our universe. To theists it is not a speculation. Imagine if you will Lori, AB, lawdog, or any other theists here saying "Hmm... I think that maybe there's a god and that maybe he..." No, I don't think so.
Yes.
No. If only theists would stop there. Physics - good and natural, god created physics then left it alone - maybe.
I understand this common stance. However, some things that are overwhelmingly shown to be not true (nice phrasing, huh?) can be said to be disproven.
Luminiferous ether - disproven
Planetary epicycles - disproven
Heritability of acquired traits - disproven
Matter is infinitely divisible - disproven
Radiation travels infinetly fast - disproven
and so on.
Yes.
I sense a misunderstanding of theory in your statement, as in it's ony a theory.
A theory as commonly understood is a good speculation. A accepted theory as scientifically intended is a model that accurately represents nature.
So, saying god created the universe (as theists do) but it is impossible to access god in any way but through personal epiphany (as theists do) puts that speculation on the same footing with the speculation on Bigfoot or the Lock Ness monster. In fact, less solid footing.
Now, does god exist? You say he does? How do we know this? His works you say?
Now, you've made some testable claim (as already stated) for god. Does this not then allow for tests to show that the god "speculation" is not true?
Theists claim god is real and has a profound affect on our universe. To theists it is not a speculation. Imagine if you will Lori, AB, lawdog, or any other theists here saying "Hmm... I think that maybe there's a god and that maybe he..." No, I don't think so.
And what do you mean by scientifically disproven? If you mean that the laws of physics are sufficient for explaining all known phenomena,...
Yes.
...then can you take that to claim that a god did not create the laws of physics?
No. If only theists would stop there. Physics - good and natural, god created physics then left it alone - maybe.
It is usually very unsafe to claim that science has disproven anything,...
I understand this common stance. However, some things that are overwhelmingly shown to be not true (nice phrasing, huh?) can be said to be disproven.
Luminiferous ether - disproven
Planetary epicycles - disproven
Heritability of acquired traits - disproven
Matter is infinitely divisible - disproven
Radiation travels infinetly fast - disproven
and so on.
that is not its purpose, but rather science is about establishing knowledge,...
Yes.
...and then most of what it discovers is considered theory.
I sense a misunderstanding of theory in your statement, as in it's ony a theory.
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
A theory as commonly understood is a good speculation. A accepted theory as scientifically intended is a model that accurately represents nature.
So, saying god created the universe (as theists do) but it is impossible to access god in any way but through personal epiphany (as theists do) puts that speculation on the same footing with the speculation on Bigfoot or the Lock Ness monster. In fact, less solid footing.
Now, does god exist? You say he does? How do we know this? His works you say?
Now, you've made some testable claim (as already stated) for god. Does this not then allow for tests to show that the god "speculation" is not true?