Tricks Theists Play (Part 1)

[muichimotsu]

Your sensus divinitatus is broken then kind sir. You need to be regenerated by the Great Physician.
haven't read WCB in awhile. I don't think AP says the knowledge is granted, but confirmed by the Holy Spirit. might be mistaken though. I think this would handle your chicken/egg problem.

Ah, the convenient solution that YOU offer is the only way to solve the problem instead of considering that maybe the presupposition you make about the divine existing might be wrong. Yeah, that's not dishonest at all.

If you need to assume the deity you think exists as a solution to the problem of determining its existence, that's the definition of circular reasoning, if not outright tautology

 

[muichimotsu]

An interesting observation. I've read scores of textbooks and hundreds, perhaps thousands of research papers and I cannot recall a single instance of such usage. I readily concede that I may simply not have noticed it, since it is not something I would be looking for. Would you provide an example or two where scientists have used theory in the looser, speculative sense, in the literature. Thank you.

That's the problem: pretty sure no scientist worth their salt would use theory as the conjecture meaning because it has a specific definition in scientific discipline in the first place. The only ones who use theory in the derisive manner are those either ignorant of the distinction or not caring so they can deceive others into thinking science is somehow on equal ground with faith when that's anything but the truth given the self correcting and intellectually honest methodology science uses improves itself in terms of the knowledge gained. As for the application, that's a whole other thing

 

[Ophiolite]

That's the problem: pretty sure no scientist worth their salt would use theory as the conjecture meaning because it has a specific definition in scientific discipline in the first place. The only ones who use theory in the derisive manner are those either ignorant of the distinction or not caring so they can deceive others into thinking science is somehow on equal ground with faith when that's anything but the truth given the self correcting and intellectually honest methodology science uses improves itself in terms of the knowledge gained. As for the application, that's a whole other thing

That has always been my impression. However, I always try to entertain the notion that I may be mistaken. @Qwertyui0p made a clear assertion that scientists do use the term in its colloquial sense. Here is a reminder:

So the critic is simply wrong to say that it’s a mistake to use theory to mean ‘speculation’, ‘conjecture’ or ‘guess’; and that scientists never use theory this way in the literature.

So, it is not a matter of claiming that in casual conversation, or even in technical conversations with colleagues they would use "theory" to mean "hypothesis" or speculation, but they use it in that way in the literature. That is a clear and a significant claim. I accept it may be correct and merely await examples to demonstrate I was wrong. It should be easy for Qwertyui0p to provide such examples. So far this has not happened. The principle explanations for this absence are:

• Qwertyui0p had forgotten this discussion and my request. This post will serve as a reminder.
• Qwertyui0p has been distracted by real world problems. A brief note that my request has not been forgotten and will be addressed, would be appreciated.
• Qwertyui0p is finding it difficult to locate examples of the type he asserts occur. A brief not that he is continuing his search would be appreciated.
• Qwertyui0p has recognised his assertion was incorrect. A brief acknowledgement of this would be appreciated.
• Qwertyui0p did not expect to be challenged on the matter and was merely providing an example of "The Tricks Theists Play". A retraction of the assertion and apology for the 'trick' would be required.

If I have missed an explantion please, Qwertyui0p, let me know what is by responding appropriately. Thank you in advance.

• Qwertyui0p never expected to be challenged on the matter

 

[Qwertyui0p]

That has always been my impression. However, I always try to entertain the notion that I may be mistaken. @Qwertyui0p made a clear assertion that scientists do use the term in its colloquial sense. Here is a reminder:

So, it is not a matter of claiming that in casual conversation, or even in technical conversations with colleagues they would use "theory" to mean "hypothesis" or speculation, but they use it in that way in the literature. That is a clear and a significant claim. I accept it may be correct and merely await examples to demonstrate I was wrong. It should be easy for Qwertyui0p to provide such examples. So far this has not happened. The principle explanations for this absence are:

• Qwertyui0p had forgotten this discussion and my request. This post will serve as a reminder.
• Qwertyui0p has been distracted by real world problems. A brief note that my request has not been forgotten and will be addressed, would be appreciated.
• Qwertyui0p is finding it difficult to locate examples of the type he asserts occur. A brief not that he is continuing his search would be appreciated.
• Qwertyui0p has recognised his assertion was incorrect. A brief acknowledgement of this would be appreciated.
• Qwertyui0p did not expect to be challenged on the matter and was merely providing an example of "The Tricks Theists Play". A retraction of the assertion and apology for the 'trick' would be required.

If I have missed an explantion please, Qwertyui0p, let me know what is by responding appropriately. Thank you in advance.

• Qwertyui0p never expected to be challenged on the matter

I apologise. I was quoting someone else, and didn't check for examples before I posted. My main point was that CMI advise not to use the 'just a theory' argument (so Ken Ham has probably stopped using that argument himself)

 

[Ophiolite]

I apologise. I was quoting someone else, and didn't check for examples before I posted. My main point was that CMI advise not to use the 'just a theory' argument (so Ken Ham has probably stopped using that argument himself)

Thank you. I appreciate your prompt correction.