Does God Exist? - Beliefs & Evidence

[HIGHLYTOXIC]

Hi guys,
I think this the basic question which comes into the minds of science
students. Does God exists? or What is GOD?

According to my belief, there's nothing like god. I have two reasons for that:
1. Theres no scientific proof of it.
2.If someone like God existed, the world would be a much better place to live in.

What do you guys say?
Has someone come across any solid evidence about its existence?

Regards,

 

[hedons]

Physics has nothing to do with God and/or religion. It is not the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.

Science in general and physics in particular occupies itself especially with measurable things, with repeatable experiments. Physics is (in)famous for additionally developing mathematical models from the results of these experiments, and for drawing conclusions about not observable matters.

It is a fact that, even in the age of science there is still no proof of god's existence (nor proof for his non-existence, nor unambiguous evidence in favour of one or the other religion or family of religions.) It is also a fact that science can neither explain, rule out or proove things like a "soul", PSI-powers, appearances, wonders or religious experience. Last but not least, it is also a fact that the decision for a religion is always a personal one, and no impersonal apparatus like science can take that responsibility from us. Fortunately:

If I "believe" in god just because science has prooved his existence, don't I primarily believe in science? Today's religious leaders are apparently not completely conscious that, by using science for their own self-justification, they advertise "the competition" and discredit themselves.

Check out a book called "The Mind of God: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR A RATIONAL WORLD" by Paul Davies.

 

[master_coda]

Originally posted by HIGHLYTOXIC
What do you guys say?

I say this is in the wrong forum.

 

[Arcon]

Originally posted by hedons
Physics has nothing to do with God and/or religion.

Why? Part of physics is the nature of the universe and how it came into existence. That is exactly what most people attribute to God.

Suppose Alan Guth and Ed Farhi figured out how to create a universe in the lab. They do so. Then after 15 billion years the inhabitants of that universe start to wonder where it came from. If someone in that universe started to ask "Who is Alan Guth" then he'd be one step of them all. But how is that question not related to the question the other physicists in that new universe are asking about where their universe came from?

re - It is not the job of science to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God. - Science is not about proving or disproving anything. Science is about observing nature and trying to explain it in a consistent way.

re - Science in general and physics in particular occupies itself especially with measurable things, ... - Yes. Like the Big Bang

re - ... with repeatable experiments. - Not quite. It's conserned with repeatable observations not experiments. Do you know of anyone who says that cosmology is not a science since we can't create a Big Bang in a repeatable experiment?


re - It is a fact that, even in the age of science there is still no proof of god's existence (nor proof for his non-existence, nor unambiguous evidence in favour of one or the other religion or family of religions.) - There is also no complete theory of quantum gravity or a theory of everything. Lack of something has never been proof that the something cannot exist or cannot be attatined.

re - It is also a fact that science can neither explain, rule out or proove things like a "soul", PSI-powers, appearances, wonders or religious experience. - I disagree here too. Scientists are just now being able to start to ask better questions. We can start exploring aspects of consciousness and scientists have even revently been able to recreate in a repeatble manner Out of body experiences.

re - Last but not least, it is also a fact that the decision for a religion is always a personal one, ... as is several areas of science.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by hedons
Check out a book called "The Mind of God: THE SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR A RATIONAL WORLD" by Paul Davies.

Could you give a brief summary of what this is about? I might be interested in reading it..

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Arcon
There is also no complete theory of quantum gravity or a theory of everything. Lack of something has never been proof that the something cannot exist or cannot be attatined.

Remember also that theories are theories and if they cannot be disproved, as shows in many cases, they are regarded as true. This prevents other ideas from letting through and has an inhibitating effect on other beliefs. Very few things are certain and we know VERY little though we like to think that we do.

 

[hedons]

The Mind of God
Paul Davies
Simon & Schuster 1992
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A book review by Danny Yee - © 1993 http://dannyreviews.com/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Mind of God is one of the recent offerings from physics populariser Paul Davies. Unlike his other books it contains very little in the way of actual physics, being instead about foundational metaphysical and epistemological issues. While it is written for a popular audience and makes no assumptions of prior knowledge, the reader without any maths/physics/computer science background is likely to find the barrage of new ideas heavy going. The philosophically naive reader is also likely to end up confused by the plethora of different ideas being thrown at them. However they should not be put off, as the ideas and issues covered are arguably intrinsically perplexing. (Perhaps the only reason they don't confuse practicing philosophers is because the latter are already extremely confused :-).
The Mind of God begins with physics, looking at different theories of the creation of the universe, the nature of physical laws and the possibility of a theory of everything. This leads on naturally to a discussion of mathematics and its philosophical foundations, and then on to computer science, and in particular the nature of computation and its relationship to physical processes. Then it's back to mathematics and its relationship with physics. After this things get more philosophical, with a look at various arguments for a "God" or at least something "outside" the universe. The final chapter is a look at mysticism and contains a suggestion that non-rational (religious and mystical) approaches to understanding may be able to go beyond the limits of physics.

The bulk of the material is expository, but Davies does come to two broad conclusions. The first is that there is something special about the universe, the second is that there is something special about us. "We are truly meant to be here." is the closing sentence of the book. I do not find the arguments for either of these at all convincing. I am tempted to play the positivist and argue that neither of his claims means anything (because I do not understand how anything can be "special" except to or for an observer, and hence cannot see how one can argue that the universe is special without first assuming the existence of a God), but there are other problems with these claims.

The argument that there is something mysterious about the universe is based on our ability to understand the universe at all and on its apparent operation according mathematical rules. The former is a natural consequence of our existence as intelligent animals, and the explanation of this is the task of evolutionary biology. (See below, and consult any work on the evolution of consciousness and cognition.) The latter is only significant if there is an alternative, and I would argue that anything with structure can have that structure represented mathematically, and anything that "exists" must connect to other things (perhaps there are invisible, intangible, non-interacting pink elephants out there, but they don't concern me) and hence must exhibit some kind of structure.

The laws of physics are indeed such as to allow life to exist, but it is not clear that we can deduce anything about our own significance from that. Even given the right laws of physics it seems that the existence of Homo sapiens (or indeed multicellular life) on this planet is a contingent fact of natural history and by no means inevitable. (See Stephen Jay Gould's Wonderful Life, for example.) Also, given that we do not even know what Omega (the average mass density of the universe) is to within an order of magnitude, it seems hard to argue for the sensitivity of the existence of life to the "initial conditions" of the universe!

The long progression through the arguments for the existence of God - the good old ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the argument from design all making their appearance - is a little odd. Davies provides more than adequate explanations for the failure of each of the different arguments as he proceeds, yet at the end has somehow given the impression that all the arguments put together, despite having been individually refuted, give some kind of support to there being a "God".

Davies' restriction of his view to the physical and mathematical sciences and his complete neglect of the historical sciences is also worrying. To me his ideas seem a strange mixture of Cartesian reductionism on the one hand and mystical idealism on the other. He attempts to reduce epistemology to physics, mathematics and computer science, and then, when these don't seem to be able to explain everything, resorts to appeals to mysticism and religion. I certainly agree that there is more to the universe (and epistemology) than physics and mathematics deal with. However, instead of looking to mysticism or religion for information about this or about our place in the universe, I would suggest trying anthropology and evolutionary biology.

These qualms about Davies' broader conclusions aside, The Mind of God is a brilliant exposition of foundational philosophical issues in mathematics, physics and computer science. It is recommended reading for anyone interested in the big philosophical questions.

15 December 1993

 

[Kakorot]

Well...

Your reasons for not believing in God are very shallow, to say the least. I'm not trying to offend you, I am only telling the truth.
1.)There is no scientific proof
2.)The world would be a better place

Ok, first I will have to say that there is no scientific proof for anything. Science is a theories, it is all guesses. Saying "scientific proof" is an oxymoron. Science is simply the best guess one can make about something.
Now, I am not against science, i love science.
Its just that it can never be advanced enough to prove the existence of God. The reason: If God does exist, He would want people to have faith in Him, but He wouldn't want people to show that He surely exists. Because that would destroy the purpose of faith. So God would make His universe in such a way that His own existence could never be shown. He controls the universe which means He controls whether you are able to prove He exists or not!

And to your second reason. I find that the most shallow of the two. We are imperfect creatures and were given rule over the Earth along with other beings who are imperfect. God doesn't want to have the world "be better" right now, for some reason or another, so he keeps us in charge and it will stay imperfect until He returns (the 2nd coming of Christ)

I know I had to add a few religious things in there, but it was necessarry to get my points across.

 

[dodik]

crazy

This is a physics forum. There is a thing on the internet called religion forums. I am sure they would love to hear your ideas.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Arcon
Why? Part of physics is the nature of the universe and how it came into existence. That is exactly what most people attribute to God.

Science (and physics in particular) is about the study of the natural world. God most often is given the attribute of being non physical (whatever the hell that means) and by definition is outside the realm of science. That's really all there is to it.

 

[Sacofjoea]

If someone like god existed, the world would be a much better place to live in.

If the world was a much better place than it currently is, would god be expected to exist?

 

[Dissident Dan]

Science may not be able to disprove the general concept of a deity, but it can disprove individual creation stories and religious lore. For example, in the bible, rain comes from when god opens up his dome that separates the waters above from the waters below. This is patently false. So we can disregard the bible as being completely true.

There is also the problem with the omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent god and how that idea does not correlate to our known existence. Not only is this true, but the very idea of omnipotent is impossible (An omnipotent being cannot make a rock that it cannot lift, because not being able to lift it would be a limit on its power, yet not being able to make it is a limitation, as well. Also, every interaction is an equal-opposite reaction so as to not have something from nothing. This means that to cause change, you must be changed yourself.)

Even if science cannot disprove the idea of a deity, rational thought can.

A deity cannot exist, because the definition of a deity means that it is noncausal, and you have something from nothing each time a noncausal action occurs.

 

[Kakorot]

THE ROCK

Eh, that question used to bother me
The one about God and the Rock
Well, think about this. If God is all powerful, that means he is able to put limits on himself.
So it would go like this.
-Create Rock
-Put on limits
-Try to lift Rock and fail

Thus, the answer to "Can God create a rock so heavy that He cannot lift it?" is Yes.

Logic and Reasoning do not disprove a deity's existence, it only shows one side of the coin.

And about the whole Dome opening and rain coming down. What part of the Bible did you read that in, I would like to know. (I haven't read the whole thing yet) Just tell me what verse it was and I will get back to you on what it means.
Right now, I am guessing it is probably a reference to the story of noah. Their used to be a layer of ice above the atmosphere due to the meissner effect(the dome), and it broke apart into rain (the opening and raining). B

 

[Dissident Dan]

Well, if god has limits, then god is not all powerful, so the argument still stands.

There's a bit about it in genesis 1, but there is may be more lurking somewhere else.

Layer of ice? What are you talking about?

 

[Eh]

That's just a reference to some pseudoscientific nonsense that uneducated creationists tend to spew. There's nothing scientific about it.

 

[Thallium]

Originally posted by Eh
That's just a reference to some pseudoscientific nonsense that uneducated creationists tend to spew. There's nothing scientific about it.

Please, Eh. Define what is true then. Do we know anything for certain? Is education only truth? No. It's hypothesis, theory accepted on the basis that it cannot be contradicted or disproved and so on. Your arrogance will take you nowhere except to ignorance and limited and inhibited understanding.

To understand, one must confront the subject/object from all possible, thinkable and unthinkable angles. The world was not adapted to our minds, it is our minds' task to adapt to it.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Thallium
Please, Eh. Define what is true then. Do we know anything for certain? Is education only truth?

That's irrelevant because my statement has nothing to do with epistemology. Creationism is unscientific, and it's nonsensical to pretend otherwise. That is exactly what creationists do by attempting to argue about a global flood.

No. It's hypothesis, theory accepted on the basis that it cannot be contradicted or disproved and so on. Your arrogance will take you nowhere except to ignorance and limited and inhibited understanding.

If recognizing creationism as childish nonsense is arrogant, so be it. However, I will say that creationism deserves no better approach. Creationists frequently take a branch of science they have virtually no understanding of and yet still feel the need to lecture others on how wrong it is. I mean, what kind of moron would argue about a subject they know nothing about?

Of course, that is exactly what creationists do. In spite of knowing nothing about a subject, many will even feel qualified to debate experts (biologists, geologists, astronomers, etc.) in the field. The result is that creationists end up making an embarrassment of themselves. It is no wonder the world laughs as creationists.

 

[Dissident Dan]

A layer of ice high in the atmosphere would have to either float or be supported by the earth, or encompass the whole earth.

It could not float, due to its density being higher than that of air.

If it connected to the earth, it would be very large, and as size increases, structural integrity decreases, so it would not be able to hold itself up for any amount of time.

The encirlcing of the Earth falls prey to the same size pitfall.

Also, there would be nothing to hold the water there while it froze. It would have to all freeze at once, or bits and pieces would have to be held up while waiting for other parts to freeze.

 

[Kakorot]

when i mean dome of ice, i didnt mean "solid" it was much like cirrus clouds of today, but much bigger, obviously.

 

[Kakorot]

dear Eh

Well, I have to agree with you in the aspect that some creationists have no clue of what they talk about. The ones that go against science are just stupid. Because science is not the opposite of religion, even tho some think it is for some reason.
But let me just say that the discovery channel's Walking with prehistoric beasts was just as rediculous as any uneducated creationist, if not more.
My reasoning...the show talked more about some little life story about every creature. All those stories are fiction, you know that right? Someone made up the story of the gastornis chasing the propaliotherium (spelling?). Sure, maybe it did prey on that animal, but the specific story used in the show was made up. And you can say the same for the rest. The only actual "science" in that show was them talking about the bones and how they GUESS how the animals behaved.
The reason I believe in creation because I have seen better scientific evidence for it than I have for evolution. And until I see convincing evidence for evolution, I will continue to believe in creation. It is as simple as that.

 

[Kakorot]

dear Dissident Dan

The argument does not still stand.
God can put limits on himself, and then take them off whenever he wants to. An all powerful being can control their own all powerfulness.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Kakorot
Well, I have to agree with you in the aspect that some creationists have no clue of what they talk about. The ones that go against science are just stupid. Because science is not the opposite of religion, even tho some think it is for some reason.

One is based on empirical evidence, and the other on blind faith. They are not incompatible, because one can be selective about which philosophical viewpoint to apply in certain situations.

But let me just say that the discovery channel's Walking with prehistoric beasts was just as rediculous as any uneducated creationist, if not more.My reasoning...the show talked more about some little life story about every creature. All those stories are fiction, you know that right? Someone made up the story of the gastornis chasing the propaliotherium (spelling?).

I think you missed the point. The shows on Discovery (one series was about early humans as well) were fiction designed for pure entertainment. Haven't you ever wondered what life would be like in the days of early humans? Or how dinosaurs really lived? If yes, you have the making of a good story. That's all the TV series was, and nobody was claiming otherwise. IOW, no one was claiming this to be anything more than a unique brand of science fiction.

The reason I believe in creation because I have seen better scientific evidence for it than I have for evolution. And until I see convincing evidence for evolution, I will continue to believe in creation. It is as simple as that.

Uh huh. Odds are, the only thing you've read about evolution (and other sciences) comes from creationist sources. Otherwise, you wouldn't have brought up the ridiculous dome of ice idea. What's next, are you going to go to the astronomy form and claim that the big bang theory is about a dot that spun out of control and exploded?

 

[Kakorot]

no, i believe the big bang theory...i just don't think it happened 4 billion years ago. And I know it wasn't a dot that spun out of control.

Eh:___I think you missed the point. The shows on Discovery (one series was about early humans as well) were fiction designed for pure entertainment. Haven't you ever wondered what life would be like in the days of early humans? Or how dinosaurs really lived? If yes, you have the making of a good story. That's all the TV series was, and nobody was claiming otherwise. IOW, no one was claiming this to be anything more than a unique brand of science fiction.___


I didn't miss the point. In fact I own the prehistoric beasts book! And I have read it many times. I give those paleontologists credit for such interesting guesses, but yet, they are guesses. Those stories in those shows are no more scientific than the stories in the Bible. Evolutionism is a religion, just incase you didn't realize it. (I didnt realize it, when i first learned about it, myself)
But I used to believe in evolution, its just I've seen more evidence for creation at this point in my life, and until i see more about evolution, i will believe creation.

I don't blindly follow my beliefs.

 

[Kakorot]

sorry, i mean 40-billion years ago, not 4.
Missed the zero.

I think it happened about 6000 to 7000 years ago.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Kakorot
no, i believe the big bang theory...i just don't think it happened 4 billion years ago. And I know it wasn't a dot that spun out of control.

Cosmologists do not think it happened 4 billion years ago either. It would be silly to form opinions about such matters without first learning something about it. (hint hint)

I didn't miss the point. In fact I own the prehistoric beasts book! And I have read it many times. I give those paleontologists credit for such interesting guesses, but yet, they are guesses. Those stories in those shows are no more scientific than the stories in the Bible.

You compeletely missed the point. No one is claiming the stories on those TV shows happened. It is fiction, pure and simple. But that has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.

Evolutionism is a religion, just incase you didn't realize it.

Allow me to repeat what you typed earlier:

Well, I have to agree with you in the aspect that some creationists have no clue of what they talk about...

You're doing the same thing here. Why not learn something about the scientific method before making claims like this? The difference between a religion and a branch of science is quite clear to anyone who has put the slightest amount of effort into learning the subject, which you clearly haven't.

 

[Kakorot]

i have put effort into it my friend, and the 4 billion year thing, i meant to type "40" billion, that was just a typo.

i probably know just about as much about evolution as u do, if not more. I just look at it differently.

It isn't science, it is not testable. It is a scientifically based theory, but is not a fact...its a theory...a guess, it has not been proven. So it is equivalent with that of a religion, therefore evolutionism is a religion, since it requires faith.

I know what i am talking about

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Kakorot
i have put effort into it my friend, and the 4 billion year thing, i meant to type "40" billion, that was just a typo.

At 40 billion you're still not even close. No, you haven't bothered reading anything.

i probably know just about as much about evolution as u do, if not more. I just look at it differently.

As I said, your comments in this thread lead me to believe you (in typical creationist fashion) haven't bothered to learn anything about the subject, yet still feel the need to tell everyone your opinion about it. I'm confident that if you decide to take part in some other discussions on these forums this fact will become undeniable.

It isn't science, it is not testable.

Scientific theories make testible predictions, which evolution has successfully done for the past 150 years. This does not only mean experiments done in the lab, but also making predictions about previously unobserved experimental data. There has never been such a testible prediction made by any creationist model.

It is a scientifically based theory, but is not a fact...its a theory...a guess, it has not been proven. So it is equivalent with that of a religion, therefore evolutionism is a religion, since it requires faith.

Now you've demonstrated you don't know the difference between a scientific theory, and the usage of the word in every day language. The word theory can be used to describe any old guess in the regular use of it, but in science the word has a very well defined meaning. A theory is a hypothesis (an explanation of all available data) that has made several successful testible predictions. The status of "theory" is a good as you're going to get in science. Facts are in the exclusive realm of mathematics. Again, this is basic information available to anyone who takes the slightest amount of time to learn about it.

I know what i am talking about

In a parallel universe in an episode of Sliders, perhaps.

 

[Dissident Dan]

Kakorot, you are still wrong on the limits thing. If god cannot create a rock then will never be able to lift, then that is a limit on him. If he creates the rock, then that is a limit on him. If god places a limit on himself, then he is limited, and therefore not omnipotent.


Evolution is not on the same playing field as religion. It is not faith. It is based on facts and logical induction. Religion is not. Even if one wants to content that it is not definitely true, that does not put it on the same ground as mythology.

The term "science" has expanded to include more than just experiment. It also includes observed facts. Otherwise, one could not consider zoology a science.

 

[olde drunk]

Kakorot

Are you willing to consider, think about another definition of god?? something broader than the traditional ?

imho, forums of this type are for the expansion of thought into new areas. i doubt that many would deny that there is a god. but do we need to preach to the traditional choir?

peace,

 

[Kakorot]

creationism is based on logic and facts, just as evolution is. They are equal foes right now. There is just as much scientific evidence and theories supporting both. Its just evolution is talked about a lot more. You need faith to believe in one or the other. And I personally classify anything that needs to have faith as a religion. So I'm sorry for not mentioning that earlier.
But I hope you see my point about believing in evolution requires faith.

 

[olde drunk]

Originally posted by Kakorot
creationism is based on logic and facts, just as evolution is. They are equal foes right now. There is just as much scientific evidence and theories supporting both. Its just evolution is talked about a lot more. You need faith to believe in one or the other. And I personally classify anything that needs to have faith as a religion. So I'm sorry for not mentioning that earlier.
But I hope you see my point about believing in evolution requires faith.

OK! what i would like to see is for all of us to consider that there may be another answer. God, books, evolution, creation may have worn out their usefullness.

whether we accept QM or not, i find it very exciting that we are on the edge of a new world view. for years metaphysics has postulated that the consciousness is the creator. now, physics, math and philosophers are coming together with new ideas to explain our reality. whether the Shrod-cat is alive or dead, or, in, not in the box becomes a better explanation than all of the preceeding concepts.

subject to more information, i will put my beliefs in the pantheistic view of the universe. if the cat can't be there unless i want it to be there, i create all of my reality. quite frankly, if we evaluate our experience, honestly, we can see that our individual ideas, actions, etc were responsible for the events in our lives.

it may even suggest a question as to whether or not there are real victims in this world. did they invite the event and agree to participate? I'm sure the ABA will want that line expunged!

again, my interest is to expand thought, not debate old issues. hell, creationists and evolutionists can argue till the cows come home and there will be no conclusive answer. so let's go beyond those ideas.

peace,

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Kakorot
creationism is based on logic and facts, just as evolution is.

No it isn't, it's based on lazy thinking and ignorance of several branches of science. And as I've already explained, one is a scientific theory and the other is a supernatural myth.

They are equal foes right now. There is just as much scientific evidence and theories supporting both. Its just evolution is talked about a lot more.

Once again, no. One is a scientific theory, one is not. One is able to explain the available data within a consistent framework, while the other simly says "magic did it" and ignores incompatible evidence. One has made countless successful predictions, while the other has made absolutely none at all. How one can still confuse the two is beyond me.

You need faith to believe in one or the other. And I personally classify anything that needs to have faith as a religion. So I'm sorry for not mentioning that earlier.
But I hope you see my point about believing in evolution requires faith.

You don't have a point here, because all you're doing is spewing nonsense about a subject you know nothing about. Typical creationist stupidity.

 

[Kakorot]

Ok, Eh.
Think what you want, but evoltuionism is a faith, not a science, you can call it a scietific theory, and that's fine, but it isn't testable or observable...therefore, not a true science.
Have you ever heard of the term Creation theory? Its also a scientific theory with just as much to argue as evolution theory has. It is also not testable nor observable, so it is also not a true science. Neither evolutionism nor creationism should be considered a science until actual hard proof is found. They are systems of faith based on assumptions from interpretations of evidence.


Also, creationism does not say "magic did it". And if you were told that by a creationist, they are misinformed. Creationism says God created the physical laws of the universe and used them to build it.
Now you may ask, "where did God come from?"
Well, I shall respond, "he has always existed."
Then you may say something like, "no that's impossible."
Then I would respond, "well if what you just said is true, then big bang would also be impossible, since the beginning singularity had to come from somewhere, according to what you have just told me."

Creationism is just as much of a myth as Evolutionism is.

And i really don't appreciate being called "stupid". It just makes you seem really immature. So refrain from the name calling please.

 

[Eh]

Originally posted by Kakorot
Ok, Eh.
Think what you want, but evoltuionism is a faith, not a science, you can call it a scietific theory, and that's fine, but it isn't testable or observable...therefore, not a true science.
Have you ever heard of the term Creation theory? Its also a scientific theory with just as much to argue as evolution theory has.

How many times do you need to be corrected before you'll stop repeating that nonsense? As I said, evolution is a theory that a. explains the available evidence within a single consistent model and b. has made many successful testible predictions. Creationism is not a model that can explain the available data, and has never made any successful predictions. If you want to argue otherwise, you're going to have to name some.

It is also not testable nor observable, so it is also not a true science. Neither evolutionism nor creationism should be considered a science until actual hard proof is found. They are systems of faith based on assumptions from interpretations of evidence.

Once again you're displaying considerable ignorance of what science actually is. As I already mentioned, the scientific method is not about proving theories. A scientific model provides a consistent explanation of some phenomena, and a model that makes successful predictions reaches the status of "theory". However, at no time is any theory considered to be a fact. At any time, any given established theory can be falsified by experimental evidence. "Proof" is something mathematicians deal with, not scientists.

You can continue to ignore this all you like, but you're not fooling anyone here.

And i really don't appreciate being called "stupid". It just makes you seem really immature. So refrain from the name calling please.

Even though your posts are suggestive, I didn't call you stupid. Posting stupid comments in threads is another matter. You've clearly established that you don't know what a scientific theory is. You don't have the slightest idea about the scientific method(even after numerous corrections) and yet you argue about it anyway. As I said earlier in this thread, why in the world would you argue about about a subject without first learning something about it? All you're doing is posting an uneducated opinion and looking ridiculous in the process.

 

[Kakorot]

dear eh,
I know what I am talking about

Its just I am used to dealing with evolutionists who feel the theory is a fact, that's all, sorry for the confusion.