Scientific proof that God exists?

[Astargath]

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

[1715091447]

1715091447

[1715091447]

1715091447

[1715091447]

1715091447

[1715091447]

1715091447

[1715091447]

1715091447

[BADecker]

Name one of the few ones that actually say it.

You forgot about Newton already? He says nothing else in his 3rd law.

From the first 3 google searches:

''Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.''

''Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.''

''According to Newton's third law...
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.''

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html

Perhaps I'm blind but where does it say that everything has a cause?

How dense are you? You don't seem to understand that an action that gets a reaction is a cause that has an effect. If I had a nickle for every bit of science 101 I had to remind you of, I'd be very wealthy.

[BADecker]

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

[qwik2learn]

.

In other words, Jesus is God. Jesus died to uphold God's Name and God's purity in the eyes of men and angels. God let the Jews think they were killing Jesus for the sake of money. But that wasn't the real reason God allowed and even promoted it. It was for the honor of His Own Name that He did it.

I don’t think that GOD requests for anyone to be a martyr.
He never said "I, Jesus, am GOD" and he never cooperated with those who tried to capture him. He never did say "I, Jesus am the redeemer" and in fact the Biblical passages that support your dogma of "salvation by faith in Jesus" have been determined to be inauthentic. I recommend that you wake up to the truth of the Biblical teachings before it is too late.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg26060980#msg26060980

[BADecker]

.

In other words, Jesus is God. Jesus died to uphold God's Name and God's purity in the eyes of men and angels. God let the Jews think they were killing Jesus for the sake of money. But that wasn't the real reason God allowed and even promoted it. It was for the honor of His Own Name that He did it.

I don’t think that GOD requests for anyone to be a martyr.
He never said "I, Jesus, am GOD" and he never cooperated with those who tried to capture him. He never did say "I, Jesus am the redeemer" and in fact the Biblical passages that support your dogma of "salvation by faith in Jesus" have been determined to be inauthentic. I recommend that you wake up to the truth of the Biblical teachings before it is too late.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg26060980#msg26060980

Actually, at His trial, Jesus said, "I am." Jesus answered this when the Jewish leaders asked Him if He was the Son of God. "I am" is the name that God told the Jewish people to call Him by. Jesus repeated it with reference to Himself, right in His trial. Wake up and read the Bible, and think about what you read.

Do you think that maybe you should start a religion topic?

[qwik2learn]

.

In other words, Jesus is God. Jesus died to uphold God's Name and God's purity in the eyes of men and angels. God let the Jews think they were killing Jesus for the sake of money. But that wasn't the real reason God allowed and even promoted it. It was for the honor of His Own Name that He did it.

I don’t think that GOD requests for anyone to be a martyr.
He never said "I, Jesus, am GOD" and he never cooperated with those who tried to capture him. He never did say "I, Jesus am the redeemer" and in fact the Biblical passages that support your dogma of "salvation by faith in Jesus" have been determined to be inauthentic. I recommend that you wake up to the truth of the Biblical teachings before it is too late.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg26060980#msg26060980

Actually, at His trial, Jesus said, "I am." Jesus answered this when the Jewish leaders asked Him if He was the Son of God. "I am" is the name that God told the Jewish people to call Him by. Jesus repeated it with reference to Himself, right in His trial. Wake up and read the Bible, and think about what you read.

Do you think that maybe you should start a religion topic?

That passage Mark 14:62 was judged as inauthentic to Jesus by the Jesus Seminar. Plainly you are promoting your own religion in this thread. Jesus taught universal salvation and salvation by works, take a look at these references first, before you try to argue with them.

[BADecker]

.

In other words, Jesus is God. Jesus died to uphold God's Name and God's purity in the eyes of men and angels. God let the Jews think they were killing Jesus for the sake of money. But that wasn't the real reason God allowed and even promoted it. It was for the honor of His Own Name that He did it.

I don’t think that GOD requests for anyone to be a martyr.
He never said "I, Jesus, am GOD" and he never cooperated with those who tried to capture him. He never did say "I, Jesus am the redeemer" and in fact the Biblical passages that support your dogma of "salvation by faith in Jesus" have been determined to be inauthentic. I recommend that you wake up to the truth of the Biblical teachings before it is too late.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg26060980#msg26060980

Actually, at His trial, Jesus said, "I am." Jesus answered this when the Jewish leaders asked Him if He was the Son of God. "I am" is the name that God told the Jewish people to call Him by. Jesus repeated it with reference to Himself, right in His trial. Wake up and read the Bible, and think about what you read.

Do you think that maybe you should start a religion topic?

That passage Mark 14:62 was judged as inauthentic to Jesus by the Jesus Seminar. Plainly you are promoting your own religion in this thread. Jesus taught unjversal salvation and salvation by works, take a look at these references first, before you try to argue with them.

Plainly I was just answering questions by other promoters of religion or politics in this thread. If there is any post herein, where I started a religious talk, it was by accident or mistake. My goal is science oriented for this thread.

Some people judge some things as authentic. Regarding the Bible, the answer to authentication is Holy Spirit. If it was not supposed to be in the Bible, it would have been taken out. The Holy Spirit would have seen to it.

However, if you want it out, who cares? You don't believe the Bible, anyway.

[browder07]

God exists in each of us. We will worship God and all good things will come to us

[tatum506]

God exists, there is so much evidence in the world that God exists

[qwik2learn]

.

In other words, Jesus is God. Jesus died to uphold God's Name and God's purity in the eyes of men and angels. God let the Jews think they were killing Jesus for the sake of money. But that wasn't the real reason God allowed and even promoted it. It was for the honor of His Own Name that He did it.

I don’t think that GOD requests for anyone to be a martyr.
He never said "I, Jesus, am GOD" and he never cooperated with those who tried to capture him. He never did say "I, Jesus am the redeemer" and in fact the Biblical passages that support your dogma of "salvation by faith in Jesus" have been determined to be inauthentic. I recommend that you wake up to the truth of the Biblical teachings before it is too late.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg26060980#msg26060980

Actually, at His trial, Jesus said, "I am." Jesus answered this when the Jewish leaders asked Him if He was the Son of God. "I am" is the name that God told the Jewish people to call Him by. Jesus repeated it with reference to Himself, right in His trial. Wake up and read the Bible, and think about what you read.

Do you think that maybe you should start a religion topic?

That passage Mark 14:62 was judged as inauthentic to Jesus by the Jesus Seminar. Plainly you are promoting your own religion in this thread. Jesus taught unjversal salvation and salvation by works, take a look at these references first, before you try to argue with them.

Plainly I was just answering questions by other promoters of religion or politics in this thread. If there is any post herein, where I started a religious talk, it was by accident or mistake. My goal is science oriented for this thread.

Some people judge some things as authentic. Regarding the Bible, the answer to authentication is Holy Spirit. If it was not supposed to be in the Bible, it would have been taken out. The Holy Spirit would have seen to it.

However, if you want it out, who cares? You don't believe the Bible, anyway.

That is circular reasoning, just one way of saying "the Bible is 100% true because the Bible tells me so". Nothing is authenticated by way of circular reasoning.

What does it mean to "believe in the Bible"? You think that it is inerrant, but I think it has some wisdom; you think that it is Holy, but I think it is full of Holes. The Jesus Seminar is an adequate source for determining what passages in the Bible are authentic to Jesus. Your opinion of the Bible is not made valid by referring to a Holy Spirit, in fact you freely admit that man commits errors, so why is this book an exception? I am not going to believe that it is free from error unless you use reason to refute the deductions of these scholars. I simply do not believe in a dogma without sufficient proof. If you search for truth using reason then you can easily deduce that Jesus did not say all that is attributed to him.

[ipbitrung01]

is already exist. where I do my đất nước, we've say that they exist

[Astargath]

Name one of the few ones that actually say it.

You forgot about Newton already? He says nothing else in his 3rd law.

From the first 3 google searches:

''Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.''

''Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.''

''According to Newton's third law...
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.''

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html

Perhaps I'm blind but where does it say that everything has a cause?

How dense are you? You don't seem to understand that an action that gets a reaction is a cause that has an effect. If I had a nickle for every bit of science 101 I had to remind you of, I'd be very wealthy.

Sure, things that have a cause have also an effect, the part I'm missing is where it says that EVERYTHING (as you claim) has actually a cause, could you make that clear for me?

[Astargath]

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

You went on a very long tangent here just to say nothing. My point was simple, there are different things in science, from the descriptions above you can see that a scientific theory is in fact better than a scientific law.
Scientific Theory vs Law
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception. In addition to defining a scientific theory we will define the word theory in English and compare the two definitions. Finally, we will make a case for why the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

[BADecker]

Name one of the few ones that actually say it.

You forgot about Newton already? He says nothing else in his 3rd law.

From the first 3 google searches:

''Formally stated, Newton's third law is:

For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.''

''Newton's third law: If an object A exerts a force on object B, then object B must exert a force of equal magnitude and opposite direction back on object A.''

''According to Newton's third law...
For every action there is an equal and opposite re-action.''

http://www.physicsclassroom.com/class/newtlaws/Lesson-4/Newton-s-Third-Law
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/forces-newtons-laws/newtons-laws-of-motion/a/what-is-newtons-third-law
http://teachertech.rice.edu/Participants/louviere/Newton/law3.html

Perhaps I'm blind but where does it say that everything has a cause?

How dense are you? You don't seem to understand that an action that gets a reaction is a cause that has an effect. If I had a nickle for every bit of science 101 I had to remind you of, I'd be very wealthy.

Sure, things that have a cause have also an effect, the part I'm missing is where it says that EVERYTHING (as you claim) has actually a cause, could you make that clear for me?

Answer your own question by finding something that has reached absolute zero.

[BADecker]

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

You went on a very long tangent here just to say nothing. My point was simple, there are different things in science, from the descriptions above you can see that a scientific theory is in fact better than a scientific law.
Scientific Theory vs Law
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception. In addition to defining a scientific theory we will define the word theory in English and compare the two definitions. Finally, we will make a case for why the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

Short or long, you don't seem to understand that science uses Quantum to determine what is impossible. Quantum is probability. If something is improbable enough, science say that it is impossible.

Science law IS more sound than science theory. It simply is not free as science theory is. There is no freedom to play in science law. Science theory allows one to play all over the place. That is why science law is more solid than science theory.

The science theory might be the best tool that we have, but revelation from someone who understands is better than science.

Also, the website you listed starts out stating the idea that a "scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory." But a scientific law can be found without using a scientific theory. For example. Something might be an absolute fact observed by millions of people without a scientific application. Then some scientist makes a scientific observation, and the law is made without the theory.

The point is, scientific theory can be rebutted with other scientific theory. A scientific law cannot. When there is no shadow of a doubt that a scientific theory is correct, it becomes a scientific law.

[Astargath]

Nothing can be 100% factual so saying that a scientific theory is not 100% factual is like saying nothing, it's not an argument. A scientific theory is the closest we can get to the facts, it is the best science can do for certain things so your argument is just retarded.

LOL! Even you know that science law is way more factual than science theory.

The tiny bit that science law might fall into the realm of science theory is so small that scientists consider it non-existent.

I mean. Perhaps we don't exist, and all this posting that we do doesn't exist, either. And maybe we aren't even strong enough to be a figment of our own imaginations to say nothing about existing. I mean, there is probability that suggests silly things like that. But science dismisses it as impossible.

Why do you keep on heading for the impossible in your talk. You are making a universe the size of our universe out of something that isn't as big as a muon. If you believe what you are saying, you are talking religion. Believe it or not, you are talking political science.

When are you going to get back on topic?

Something cannot be more factual than something else, it's either factual or it's not.

Science uses specialized terms that have different meanings than everyday usage. These definitions correspond to the way scientists typically use these terms in the context of their work. Note, especially, that the meaning of “theory” in science is different than the meaning of “theory” in everyday conversation.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.” Truth in science, however, is never final and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow.
Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, the hypothesis is provisionally corroborated. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis is proved false and must be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.
Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.
Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Now you can leave.

You said what I am trying to tell you better than I. The dismissal of non-factual things in science, makes the remaining things factual... in science. And that is what we are talking about here. Science law and science theory. Not absolute fact without the slightest evidence against.

Didn't you read the topic title? "Scientific proof that God exists?" How can you miss the word "science" in the topic? Science dismisses "things" as impossible when there are great enough odds against them. That's when we get science law, which is essentially science fact. When there are insufficient odds against them in the understanding of the science community.

Science theory is not science law because there are great enough odds that an opposing science theory can be made.

Will you ever get out of political science talk?

You went on a very long tangent here just to say nothing. My point was simple, there are different things in science, from the descriptions above you can see that a scientific theory is in fact better than a scientific law.
Scientific Theory vs Law
There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory. This is understandable, as without having these terms formally defined the English definition logically leads to the misconception. In addition to defining a scientific theory we will define the word theory in English and compare the two definitions. Finally, we will make a case for why the scientific method is the best tool we have to understand the natural world.

https://medium.com/science-journal/scientific-theory-vs-scientific-law-5624633a8f1b

Short or long, you don't seem to understand that science uses Quantum to determine what is impossible. Quantum is probability. If something is improbable enough, science say that it is impossible.

Science law IS more sound than science theory. It simply is not free as science theory is. There is no freedom to play in science law. Science theory allows one to play all over the place. That is why science law is more solid than science theory.

The science theory might be the best tool that we have, but revelation from someone who understands is better than science.

Also, the website you listed starts out stating the idea that a "scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory." But a scientific law can be found without using a scientific theory. For example. Something might be an absolute fact observed by millions of people without a scientific application. Then some scientist makes a scientific observation, and the law is made without the theory.

The point is, scientific theory can be rebutted with other scientific theory. A scientific law cannot. When there is no shadow of a doubt that a scientific theory is correct, it becomes a scientific law.

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

[WishMeBad]

No one has ever proved that god exist, because it doesn't exist. Science says so.

[BADecker]

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

[Astargath]

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

Except for how I debunked them. You ended up resorting to calling the universe a ''machine'' and that all ''machines'' have makers. How do you know all machines have makers?

[BADecker]

No, the website i listed, and you seem to have problems reading, says ''There is a common misconception that a scientific law is a more sound version of a scientific theory'' After proving to you that a scientific theory is actually better than a scientific law you keep saying the same shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyN2RhbhiEU

AND by the way, some scientific laws were wrong, so thinking that a scientific law is 100% true is also wrong. There’s plenty of laws that have been shown to vary depending on what scale you’re looking at. Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation works fine unless you get close to a massive object, or start looking at things at galactic scales

A theoretical scientist will like science theory better, because he gets paid for making theory. Anybody else might like science law better, because there is a solid understanding in science law.

Science theory can be refuted by other science theory. Science theory isn't as sound as science law.

I did want to thank you for your little video. It explains exactly the thing that I am talking about. A science theory is not known to be science fact. The video says it over and over, albeit in other words. Even though science theory may be set up with all kinds of facts arranged in a new way, that new arrangement is not known to be fact.

With regard to the scientific proof that God exists, combining the 3 scientific laws, cause and effect, complexity, and entropy, we see that there is no other way for these laws to exist other than something called God. If what you are trying to do is prove that these laws are faulty, this forum isn't really the place to do it.

What about Big Bang, you might say. Big Bang simply works with some of the mathematical laws of the universe, and with other scientific theories. It is not nearly complete, since it assumes evolution theory (maybe without even saying it, and among other theories), which is, again, contradictable. This leaves so many holes in BB theory with regard to reality, that BB theory is simply a play thing.

Since evolution theory has so many holes in it that is laughable, BB theory is entirely flawed and useless. Why? Because BB theory is depending on evolution theory to fill in a bunch of gaps regarding life. All this theorizing does is to make money for those who work with it, and to distract "laymen" from reality.

Play with science theory. But do not advertise it. It is a distraction from reality.

Except for how I debunked them. You ended up resorting to calling the universe a ''machine'' and that all ''machines'' have makers. How do you know all machines have makers?

In the same way that you don't know that there are machines that don't have makers.

However, in the vastness of the machine world, the evidence that all machines have makers is so great, that you would have a difficult time finding a machine without a maker.

I'll help you. There is that ancient Greek machine that turns out to be the oldest computer in the world - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/ancient/ancient-computer.html - that was found on an ancient Greek galleon. Just because it was found there, on a sunken Greek galleon, doesn't mean we know that it had a maker. But try to tell that to any scientist, and they will laugh you right into a funny farm.