I mean there is no fossil record to indicate the existence of any God, or Godlike creature, not one scintilla of empirical data whatsoever..
So it's only based on conjecture, fantasy, and wishfull thinking, at least it has been subjected to "Peer Review" so it meets one criteria for being called a theory..
2006-08-01 11:25:58 · 28 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
wldntulike_2... And which number answerer are you? BTW This IS my hobby you dork!
2006-08-01 11:34:15 · update #1
No that would not do.... The term "theory" implies that its a construct which will be able to be proved or disproved. Faith in God doesn't fall into the same category as science. Faith requires no proof.
I have to take exception with RandyG.... Nothing about God, Jesus, or religion in general has anything at all to do with logic in my opinion, quite the contrary. You must be willing to throw of the shackles of logic in order to believe in God. There isn't a shred of evidence anywhere in the universe of God's existence, to believe in Him anyway is the antithesis of logic. If your reasoning is "The Earth exists, so God must be real. Somebody had to create this wonderful planet we live on." then I would suggest you pick up a science book and learn how the Earth really formed, you know, in REALITY.
2006-08-01 11:30:57 · answer #1 · answered by eggman 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Interesting! I would think that someone with this polished of a vocabulary would be serving in a museum or university. You seem very intelligent in your grammar, yet you are lacking important information to convince anyone that could understand these scientific words of choice.
God is referred to as a He, The Father. He is not a man, but a being. His world was created about 5800 years ago and He still exists. Cameras and video tape recorders were not invented yet, so even if he could be seen, Noah, Moses, Abraham, Paul and Jesus could not film him. I am sure they would have if that is all you need to be sure. So there is no need to refer to Him as The Theory of God.
Actually, video cameras were not around for George Washington either, yet I believe he existed just the same way, by a witness telling someone down to another witness, down to witness, etc.
2006-08-01 11:44:55 · answer #2 · answered by joe_on_drums 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, since a theory can be empirically discredited, Belief in God is not that kind of knowledge, it is both more certain and less verifiable. You might as well ask; "should I be called the theory of you." Since I cannot empirically discredit the idea that you exist. Similarly, we should not say "The theory of other minds." Since again this is not open to empirical investigation. People who suffer from this kind of confusion as subject to ask questions of the sort "How can you prove God's existence." But in doing so miss the point.
2006-08-02 06:28:56 · answer #3 · answered by phoneypersona 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You can refer to a theory as "The Theory of..." and if you believe that GOD's existence is only a theory then you can label it "The Theory of GOD's existence" but as far as I am concerned there is no need to do so when GOD is a living spirit, a person but so much greater than the definition of a person.
Why do you need a fossil record to believe in GOD? Are you suggesting that GOD could die and therefore leave proof of His existence in a fossil? No, I suspect that you want Him to literally appear in front of you and explain Himself to you and answer all your questions to your satisfaction.
There is a guy who was like that...his name is Job and a book of his life is recorded in the Bible...it tells of what happened when GOD made His presence known to him. I invite you to read the book of Job, especially if you've a bible handy or know of someone who does...
2006-08-01 11:38:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If God was to be sacrificed the whole universe would be destroyed. If you say God was carried in the womb, died then you are attributing human side to God. There isn't a single law in this world where someone takes the punishment of others. God is forgiving before he sent Jesus so why would he need to be sacrificed in order to forgive. John 5:30, I myself can do nothing as I am only here to judge and my judgement is fair. I seek not my will but the will of whom sent me. Does this sound like God? No.
2016-03-27 13:28:21 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If there were a fossil record God would be dead. And empirical evidence, look at the world Big Jim! Anyway, logic dictates that there must be a god. So you're either on the side of logic or against it.
2006-08-01 11:30:21 · answer #6 · answered by RandyGE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To count as a theory, there has to be empirical evidence of some kind from which the theory is derived. Without that, it's mere conjecture.
...and ancient manuscripts written by bronze age goat herders hardly counts as empirical evidence.
2006-08-01 11:35:01 · answer #7 · answered by lenny 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No because a theory is not a guess. Here is the definition of a theory: A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
2006-08-01 11:33:07 · answer #8 · answered by acgsk 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
their is more evidence for the existence of a Creator than you are giving credit
such as scientific and human analysis that points to the concept that the universe was created in a orderly way.
but even with your condescending tone your are correct in saying from a scientific view a Creator can only be viewed as a theory
2006-08-01 11:31:42 · answer #9 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you ever get married or are married try telling your spouse about the theory of love because there is no fossil record or any proof that it exist either.
2006-08-01 11:36:23 · answer #10 · answered by big Q 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋