What are you talking about rob? Ramoss is talking about translations. Your thing with "theory" is etymology. Is etymology exactly the same as translation?

Of course, if you look at the etymology of theory, you see a progression from the greek base to latin, from latin to english. And you utterly failed, as I recall, to rebut my counter-arguments over your position on theory.

Well that is weird... becuse I remember you showing that 'theory' comes from the latin 'thea'- which means 'a view to see'. I was arguing that the etymology went back further to the Greek 'theo'- which means 'God'. Thus 'theory' and 'theology' are related.

Now you say... that the etymology does go back to the Greek? I think you proved otherwise at the end of that debate. Perhaps I just gave up trying to argue with you. Memory is not a strong suit of mine... At any rate, you might want to retract one of those conflicting accounts.

I still think that they are conceptually simmilar as 'a view' (thea) of reality is not too far from the 'study of' God ('theo') -God being the ultimate sovereign (reality) by Biblical definition in philosphical terms. So in this case the translation is closer than the etymology.

Ramoss, you may have a point. But you will have to clarify. It is interesting that the concensus of scholars is against your interpretation.



If your point is to stand, then you need to clarify the passage number (and book), because something is dramatically wrong with this as you can plainly see:





I suspect that again you (or more likely your sources) are referencing the 'Testimonium' and wrongly giving credit to 'Antiquities'.

I supose I could figure it out the discrepency. But hey, it's your job to support your argument.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Roger Ebert's (belated) review of Expelled. (Moosie posted the link over at EvC.)

In a couple of nutshells:

_________________
What we really need to do is fix the public.
-- Jon

I guess you edited this in, because I don't remember reading it. Put simply, your memory fails you in regards to our previous debate on this. I had always argued that 'theory' went back to the greek 'thea'. 'thea' is not latin, but greek. I had always argued this because that is the view of etymologists.

By the way, 'theo' does not mean the study of god. 'theos' means god. 'logos' is the study of. theos+logos=theologos=theologia=theologia (L)=theologie (o.Fr.). By the way, do not confuse 'thea' with 'Thea', as the first is "to view", the second is a proper noun meaning "goddess".

I believe I said that 'theology' was the study of God not 'theo'.

I'll have to go back to our EVC discourse to be sure, but I think you are wrong. 'thea' (a view) was Latin in my memory. And that is where the term 'theatre' came from (the Latin). 'Thea' in the Greek (or godess) was not just any godess, but the godess of sight or vision. And as Anastasia noticed... that is an interesting overlap of concepts. Was the Greek 'thea' (if there was such a thing) linked in their culture to 'Thea'? Was 'a view' (thea) imparted by Thea in the Greek culture?

We will likely never know the answer to such questions. But what interesting questions they are. I am glad you chimed in on it all.

Anyway, it does nothing to help decide the issue since it appears ramoss's challenge to the terminology was wrongly referenced from the start.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Never said you claimed that 'theo' means the study of god. Just simply part of an argument I can't remember fully right now.

As to 'thea'. It is most definitively greek. The most basic root for 'theory' is 'thea' + 'horan', both of which are greek. Combined, they make 'theoros', or spectator, which leads to 'theorein', or to consider, speculate, or look at, which leads to 'theoria', or contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at. This is all greek. Then it finally goes to the latin 'theoria', which was then adopted in 1592. In 1613 we have the first "scientific"* use of the word, that is, an explanation based off of observation and reasoning.

As to just what 'thea' is: the proper noun most certainly means goddess. The goddes that you bring up is more properly known as Theia Euryphaessa. Without the 'Euryphaessa', there is no connotation of light, nor is she even associated with sight. 'Thea' is an alternative spelling for the goddess Theia (although technically she was a Titaness). 'thea' is quite simply not latin. As to your questions, all you're proposing is coincidence, not correlation. And given the very different histories behind 'theory' and 'theology', your original argument is ultimately bunk.

Where does 'theater' come from? Well, 'theasthai' + '-tron', making 'theatron', or a place for viewing. This, by the way, is also greek (being famous, you know, for plays, their play lexicon is still with us today, as well as the basic categorization of plays and stories). 'Theatron' becomes 'theatrum', which is latin. 'theatrum' becomes 'theatre' (O. Fr.), which becomes 'theater' about two hundred years later.

*I use quotation marks, because science as we know it today was just beginning to be formalized at this time, and there was a debate between the empiricists and rationalists over how science should proceed.

[quote="kuresu]
Never said you claimed that 'theo' means the study of god. Just simply part of an argument I can't remember fully right now.

As to 'thea'. It is most definitively greek. The most basic root for 'theory' is 'thea' + 'horan', both of which are greek. Combined, they make 'theoros', or spectator, which leads to 'theorein', or to consider, speculate, or look at, which leads to 'theoria', or contemplation, speculation, a looking at, things looked at. This is all greek. Then it finally goes to the latin 'theoria', which was then adopted in 1592. In 1613 we have the first "scientific"* use of the word, that is, an explanation based off of observation and reasoning.

As to just what 'thea' is: the proper noun most certainly means goddess. The goddes that you bring up is more properly known as Theia Euryphaessa. Without the 'Euryphaessa', there is no connotation of light, nor is she even associated with sight. 'Thea' is an alternative spelling for the goddess Theia (although technically she was a Titaness). 'thea' is quite simply not latin. As to your questions, all you're proposing is coincidence, not correlation. And given the very different histories behind 'theory' and 'theology', your original argument is ultimately bunk.

Where does 'theater' come from? Well, 'theasthai' + '-tron', making 'theatron', or a place for viewing. This, by the way, is also greek (being famous, you know, for plays, their play lexicon is still with us today, as well as the basic categorization of plays and stories). 'Theatron' becomes 'theatrum', which is latin. 'theatrum' becomes 'theatre' (O. Fr.), which becomes 'theater' about two hundred years later.

*I use quotation marks, because science as we know it today was just beginning to be formalized at this time, and there was a debate between the empiricists and rationalists over how science should proceed.[/quote]

Well I think the connection is more than coincidence, but not etymologically in the way my question supposed or implied. Since you bring up the issue of 'Euryphaessa', I will take you at your word. I have already conceded once, so I may as well do it again.

There is a philosophical connection that still lingers. And whether it is meant to be inferred is beside the point. It's a matter of logic. If 'theory' is an explanation based on observation and reasoning, then one of the obvious logical questions is, an explanation 'about what'?

Furthermore, science being what it is, is an attempt to explain reality in whole (ultimately) or 'in part'. And since reality 'in part' is not really seperable from 'the whole', all theory necessarily encroaches upon our conception of the whole of reality (in the ultimate sense). And God is synonymous with ultimate reality. Therefore theory and theology are linked inexorably. That I will not concede.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Nonsense.

Science is an attempt to explain what can be explained.

Anything that is supernatural is by definition beyond testing and so totally irrelevant.

Nor is God "synonymous with ultimate reality" except within a theistic philosophy and is irrelevant when dealing with reality until and unless you can place the God on the lab table to be examined with the same rigor science examines everything else.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

And what do yu mean by 'what' if not reality?.... fantasy?



Are you speaking of multiverses before the big bang and prebiotic organisms?



Your right. Ultimate realtiy is not just a synonym but the very definition of God ( http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/God )

And if that is only true under a theistic philosophy, then what philosophy are you operating under?

Science examines and theorizes about all manner of things that cannot be put on the table. Not the least of which is 'nothing'.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Fantasy is subject to some testing, for example we can test to see if folk enjoy a particular fantasy or not. When you place your designer on the lab table to be examined and tested then it too might be worthy of consideration.



Nope, they may well be testable.



It does not matter what philosophy I am operating under. The question is "Can you place your Designer" on the table to be tested just as we test everything else.



More nonsense. Science theorizes and then tests to see which theory stands up to challenge. If you want your Designer to be considered then you must also place it on the table to be tested just as all scientific theories are tested.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

Would the second coming of Christ in the empirical flesh qualify?



May well be?

You said that if something can be put on the table.... then... it too might be worthy.

Oh Worthy Worthy is that which is examinable and almighty?

I guess only a material manifestation of God would qualify. No pure spirit gods need apply. Must be in the flesh. ETs are ok too (thanks Francis Crick)...

Yep, then the second coming would definitely quailfy...



Why don't you just put it on the table?

Psalm 64:5 They encourage each other in evil plans, they talk about hiding their snares; they say, "Who will see them?"



He may well be testable.



If they don't stand up to challenge, 'scientists' (which are natural or material philosophers really) look for another way to defend them within a naturalistic framework. But they do not know what 'nature is'...

And in the mean time... they just go into the 'unanswered question folder', remember?

Hence, I will continue to do the very same thing (without need to hide my philosophy) in vigorous defense of my Lord and my God.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

Not really. That would be evidence of Jesus existence but not necessarily of your Designer.



Qualify as what?

The difference is that Scientists right now are doing the testing to see which of the various theories that explain what we see might be correct. It is the results of the various tests that will help us choose between the many possible explanations.



Because Science is designed to compensate for the individual's philosophy. That is part of the peer review process and replication. If people of varying philosophies examine the material and run the tests and arrive at the same results then there is a higher probability of the answer being correct.



Good. Then place your designer on the lab table just as all other possible answers are tested.



The difference is that they place their ideas out on the table to be tested. No one has yet presented a method to test your designer so the existence of your designer is not even eligible for the unanswered questions folder yet.

_________________
How pierceful grows the hazy yon! How myrtle petaled thou! For spring hath sprung the cyclotron - How high browse thou, brown cow? -- Churchy LaFemme, 1950

If he is God, he doesn't need your "defense."

I don't know what else to say... You are correct. Everywhere I look in scripture it says that God will defend me, not the other way around.

_________________
Bambi grew up to have horns

You are having a discussion. You may be defending your faith. (I wonder if the scriptures mean God will defend your faith... he'd certainly be better at it than you. That's not snark, I promise.) But it is important to understand what you're doing because it changes the nature and tone of the argument. Sometimes I wonder if people think that arguing harder is going to keep God existing. If he's there, he's there even if you don't argue for him. We are solely here to understand, to trade ideas, and to develop a community based on a desire to attain knowledge. It's important, but it's not as high-stakes as it feels if you think you have to defend your God.

I think I'll pop back out thought. I didn't see the movie, and I can't really tie this back to the topic.