O.k here we go...

[alexander]

Seriously, If you got one it would be appreciated.

imaginary - theoretically-plausible, probable, or i could always make up a term

Before i make one up though, i should say what imaginary means for me, in scientific view i guess, not to say that i am a scientist in any way tho. The reason i said that imaginary is a vague term is because, imaginary, also means things that are not real and not true, to the extent that a possibility of those things even being real, are really close to being . No self-respecting scientist will try to investigate the chemical composition of a ghost... i mean some rather imaginary things are more imaginary then others, they are not scientifically appropriate, very probable nor very theoretically-plausible.

so i made a couple of words to suite the need:

erudiginary - imaginary based on known facts, ideas, etc
sciosophical - philosophical in a scientific way
theorerudiginary - imaginary, based on factual theories

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

If a theory (or belief) isn't testable it isn't science but "Bupkis", faith or fantasy? Am I right in my understanding so far? (This is my impression when I hear/read comments like these)

Science is a system of acquiring knowledge via the scientific method and the body of knowledge acquired via the same. It is an organized method of scientific inquiry with the goal of achieving knowledge that is verifiable using empirical evidence. In general it requires:

1. the observation of some phenomena
2. the formulation of a hypothesis or theory concerning the phenomena
3. the development of methods to test the validity of the hypothesis or theory
4. Experiments to use these methods
5. a conclusion that supports or modifies the hypothesis

As the hypothesis is modified more tests are developed and new experiemnts are performed until there is certainty that the hypothesis is true in understanding the phenomena.

The Big Bang is actually an example of a testable theory and there are many tests being performed to support or refute it as an origin of the universe. We may never know with a desired level of certainty that it is the origin but we can keep trying to refute it none the less. You are not halted at step 2.

On the other hand the God theory as a hypothesis of the origin of the universe does not lend itself to testing or experimentation by the scientific method. That doesn't mean its not a possible answer to the origin of the universe, just that its not really a scientific option. There is no way to test it and confirm or refute it. All you have done is make it to step 2 in forming a theory but there is no way to devise any methods to test it in order to support or refute it. Step 2 is the end. That places it outside the realm of science.

Pursue faith and belief as answers to your question all that you want but understand that neither will provide verifiable knowledge of the truth. That is what science seeks.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Pursue faith and belief as answers to your question all that you want but understand that neither will provide verifiable knowledge of the truth. That is what science seeks.

You misunderstand my purpose here. It is not persue to attempt to support "faith" as scientific or acceptable theory or encourage folks here to do the same. It IS to understand how Science decides how and where the line is drawn to separate itself from "faith" of "belief" based "theories".