Nature

[Whateverist]

You do realize your own existence by scientific definition is a theory, right?

Right, then I ask: What isn't a theory in science?

Are empirical facts, scientific facts? Bare measurements certainly are not "scientific theories". I think when we record measurements we gather empirical facts. Scientists collect them but that doesn't make them scientific facts. It is how you generalize and predict based on those facts which qualifies as scientific theory.

The Big Bang Theory has been proven

That is hard to believe.

Of course proven originally meant "tested". It would be a little hard to replicate a big bang. Of course, you can deduce measurable implications of your theory, which when calculated may confirm or contradict it. How conclusive will this be? Lets just say it is hard to know in advance how much better those calculations may fit another as yet unknown theory. Methodologically, such work qualifies as science but it is still pretty damned speculative. I wouldn't bet the ranch on it. [Before anyone gets excited, this doesn't mean goddidit.]

I think it was said elsewhere on the forum....

"Go jump of a building... after all Gravity is Only a Theory"

Gravity exists, I see it's effects every day. How can it be [JUST] a theory?

I don't understand the criticism of this statement and question. Clearly gravity exists as more than a theory.

What we mean by "gravity" is something we can directly perceive through our kinesthetic sense. Clearly it takes effort to remain upright, otherwise why should standing on your toes be harder than with your feet flat? Gravity exists. We just don't know what it is.

A scientific theory of gravity seeks to identify exactly what it is and how it works. Science can't tell you what it is but lots of useful science has been done regarding gravity. There are good predictive mathematical models which allow us to plot paths for space craft through the planets and their moons.

[Abracadabra]

Some religionist use the incredibly remarkable and flawless work of architecture found in nature, the amazing systematic design and how each and everything is connected to one another as evidence enough for a supreme being. What are your thoughts on this?

Actually the observation that everything is connected to everything else favors and evolutionary existence rather than a designed one.

Now if all things were totally independent of all other things, then that would indeed point to evidence that they were individuality "designed".

So actually the observation that things are very similar and connected does not support a systematic designer at all.

If anything was "designed" it would have been the original forces and atoms, not the things they evolved into.

It would be a god who throws dice for sure.

No different from a human designing a pair of dice. Each one having the numbers 1 thru 6 on their faces. That would have been the 'design'.

But then when the dice are tossed and say a 9 comes up. Can it be said that the 9 was designed? Well, only in the sense that the dice were designed to only come up with possible whole numbers from 2 thru 12. And 9 happens to be among those possibilities.

But to claim that the 9 itself was uniquely 'designed' would be incorrect. In fact, if you think about it, there is no 9 on either die itself. Thus the 9 would necessarily need to have come up on its own after the toss.

This would be analogous to humans evolving in a universe. There were no humans designed into the original 'dice'. Humans are just a random combination of tossing the dice of the universe (i.e. the primordial constituents and forces). And chimpanzees are a very closely related roll of these same dice, etc.

If there exists a "designer God" it's a god who designed dice, not humans.