Scientific proof that God exists?

[username18333]

Why do you ask "Why...the 'ifs'?"   I literally just explained it.

Here:

You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Not "dissing" science at all. Simply against the stating as truth and reality certain scientific findings that are theory or less than theory. That's it in a nutshell. Included in the nutshell are the things that say Evolution is real, and the universe is billions of years old, because they include the "if"s at their base or core. If means maybe and maybe not. State it clearly and truthfully, right out in the open, rather than turning it into a religion.

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

Existence has room for everything.

[BADecker]

I am trying to say that hierarchies are a fabrication of man and they do not exist in the higher realms. I am not sure how you deduce many-gods from that.
Anyway, I question the "teachings" of Pharisee Paul; Christ made gave us many warnings about Pharisees.

BADecker,

Man was created infinite and unlimited. I am not here to pull you, my brother, down.

We are all one infinite whole. The Mission is great and our disagreement on the subject of hierarchies is of no consequence. I do not harden my heart against your words.

We should not waste time on our ever-present critics and attackers. Let us not enter into doctrinal quarrels, least of all with one-another. You and I should never be without something to do of great purpose.

 

Man may have been created infinite and unlimited. But, we, as we are now, certainly are not unlimited. If we were, we all would make ourselves to be healthy enough to live a few hundred more years, at least. And we would travel the stars to see all the things that God placed there for us, right in our bodies, not in some spiritual plane (no pun intended) after we are dead.

Man, in Adam and Eve, broke the infinty-ness and unlimited-ness when they sinned. We, as their descendants, have inherited it through our genes, if not through our spirits.

The hierarchy of God first, Jesus in God, and we in Jesus is the reality of existence. Anyone who will not accept this will have used the God-power that is within, to remove himself not only from God, but also from existence. And it won't be fun for those who remove themselves, anymore than strangling yourself to death with your own hands would be fun.

This isn't my idea. It is in the New Testament, in Paul's letters.

[BADecker]

Why do you ask "Why...the 'ifs'?"   I literally just explained it.

Here:

You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Not "dissing" science at all. Simply against the stating as truth and reality certain scientific findings that are theory or less than theory. That's it in a nutshell. Included in the nutshell are the things that say Evolution is real, and the universe is billions of years old, because they include the "if"s at their base or core. If means maybe and maybe not. State it clearly and truthfully, right out in the open, rather than turning it into a religion.

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

Existence has room for everything.

At the base of quantum mechanics, room for everything can be found. However, man has neither exhausted mathematics, nor has he proven that there is nothing existing outside of math. Math is NOT necessarily all-inclusive.

[Vod]

The hierarchy of God first, Jesus in God, and we in Jesus is the reality of existence. Anyone who will not accept this will have used the God-power that is within, to remove himself not only from God, but also from existence. And it won't be fun for those who remove themselves, anymore than strangling yourself to death with your own hands would be fun.

My friend I am curious, why do you have two different names for the FSM?  What do they signify?

[BADecker]

The hierarchy of God first, Jesus in God, and we in Jesus is the reality of existence. Anyone who will not accept this will have used the God-power that is within, to remove himself not only from God, but also from existence. And it won't be fun for those who remove themselves, anymore than strangling yourself to death with your own hands would be fun.

My friend I am curious, why do you have two different names for the FSM?  What do they signify?

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

[Vod]

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

No one can understand everything about God.  

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense.  I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.  

http://www.venganza.org/

[username18333]

. . .

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

Existence has room for everything.

At the base of quantum mechanics, room for everything can be found. However, man has neither exhausted mathematics, nor has he proven that there is nothing existing outside of math. Math is NOT necessarily all-inclusive.

How, then, may a belief in any something be compromised without an arbitrary obstinance?

[the joint]

Why do you ask "Why...the 'ifs'?"   I literally just explained it.

Here:

You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Not "dissing" science at all. Simply against the stating as truth and reality certain scientific findings that are theory or less than theory. That's it in a nutshell. Included in the nutshell are the things that say Evolution is real, and the universe is billions of years old, because they include the "if"s at their base or core. If means maybe and maybe not. State it clearly and truthfully, right out in the open, rather than turning it into a religion.

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

[username18333]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

[the joint]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

[username18333]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

[L3G1T]

just live ur life man

[Vod]

just live ur life man

That's what God/FSM preaches!  We may have different names for him*, but we all worship the same noodle!

(*The FSM is both male and female.  He appeared as a male 2,000 years ago hence the gender references in the bible)

 

[the joint]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

[username18333]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

[the joint]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense.  Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax? 

[username18333]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense.  Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax? 

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

[nikkoy]

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

No one can understand everything about God.  

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense.  I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.  

http://www.venganza.org/

hhaha. this is a new religion and its funny. xD

[the joint]

. . .

If you would read my posts, I wouldn't have to repeat myself.

Again, science *never* states conclusions as perfectly or absolutely true.  For example, if someone says, "Science (now referenced as a body of knowledge, as you did) supports evolution, so evolution is true," it's the same as saying, "We interpret our findings to mean evolution is the best explanation at this time."  If you would read the scientific papers instead of reading news articles or other sources of informal discourse, you would find that exactly 100% of all peer-reviewed, scientific studies never state conclusions with a 100% confidence level.  And if you find a scientific paper that does, then it should never have been published.

It's not that science (now referenced as a method; I can't believe I actually need to do this for you) stops at evolution.  If new evidence presents itself, then scientists will simply try to learn as much as they can to reach a new, more comprehensive theory that incorporates the new data.  I personally interpret the same evidence used to support the traditional view of evolution in a different way, and so I have reached my own conclusion based upon what I've evidenced.  If new evidence arises, then I will have to drop my original conclusion.

By the way, the definition of *any*thing is a theory of that thing.  Theories can be good or bad, right or wrong, comprehensive or inapplicable/hypothetical.  A theory is just an abstract, mathematical construct.  All reported conclusions in science are abstract, mathematical constructs.  [Edit: I forgot to mention that, while there are many types of theories, a scientific theory is one that has strong scientific rigor, which means the theory has been thoroughly explored in a consistently methodical way.]  All of your thoughts are also abstract, mathematical constructs.  Do you see where I'm going with this?

If not, it's this:  Yes, I'm arguing against you, but my primary argument here is that you do exactly what you criticize all the time.  So, basically I'm just trying to tell you that you are the one defeating your own argument.  I could say nothing and just let you contradict yourself all day and be a hypocrite, but I'm taking the time to help you with this, so I'd appreciate it if you would actually try to read my posts.  Is that so much to ask?

(Emphasis mine.)

How may a theory prove inaccurate without one's conception of that inaccuracy?

Hindsight?  For current theories, I'm not sure why it would be an issue so long as you acknowledge the limitations of your methodology.  I'm speaking here in reference to conclusions based upon observation.  With reference to purely abstract theories, you can avoid the issue entirely by knowing that you're absolutely and provably correct.  This latter type of theories must only acknowledge the boundary of sound reasoning.

One's "hindsight" (the joint) consists of one's own conceptions of one's own experiences.

The "hindsight" I'm talking about is what occurs at the introduction of new evidence that does not fit the current theory.

That "hindsight" is, partially, a function of the set of evidence one could receive.

Different universe? Different set.

So long as that 'other' universe is beyond the scope of observation, that's fairly irrelevant, especially in a practical sense.  Are you aware of any proofs that necessitate other universes with unique syntax? 

. . .

lim_x→∞ 1 ÷ x > 0 ⇒ (1 ÷ x = 0 ⇔ x > ∞) ⇒ x = −0

S₁ = k_Bln 0 = k_Bln e⁻⁽⁻⁰⁾ = k_B(−(−0)) = −(−0)

S₁ − S₂ = −(−0) − S₂ < 0 ⇒ −(−0) < S₂

S₂ = −0 = k_Bln Ω ⇒ −0 ÷ k_B = −0 = ln Ω ⇒ e⁻⁰ = −0 = Ω

. . .

I'm not privy to those sets of evidence. However, I am privy to there being nothing whereby they would not exist.

How would you describe the relationship between potential and nothing? 

[Vod]

Do you understand everything about your FSM? If you do, then it is you that are god, not the FSM. If you are serious, read the New Testament in the Bible.

No one can understand everything about God.  

Reading a 2,000 year old book, when so much has changed since then, doesn't make much sense.  I understand this, but then again I had pasta 3 hours ago.

Read the scripture if you are serious.  

http://www.venganza.org/

hhaha. this is a new religion and its funny. xD

Luckily, God (aka FSM) allows you to laugh and even mock it with no consequences!  Earth has been free to evolve for billions of years and it sees no reason to start interfering now.