Does theory of science believes the existence of god?

[Vistabel]

if science does...why science text books do not indicate any views and discussions about the existence of God. 

[Lorenzo]

Science cannot disprove of the existence of a God. Therefore, it's all a matter of faith.

[islander]

if science does...why science text books do not indicate any views and discussions about the existence of God. 

because they're science text books and not theology books.

the same thing can be said of history, mathematics, and physical education books that have no views and discussions on the existence of god.

[Scarb]

if science does...why science text books do not indicate any views and discussions about the existence of God. 

   "all lime and salt, no tequila" 

[hubag bohol]

   "all lime and salt, no tequila" 

Aha! I can feel the heat, he he... 

[wolfpack823]

Aha! I can feel the heat, he he... 

Aha to you also...(I know what you are thinking)..

[hubag bohol]

Aha to you also...(I know what you are thinking)..

Bwahaha! Butangi!

If I'm not mistaken, your theory on what I'm thinking believes in the non-existence of agave extracts... 

[Scarb]

Aha! I can feel the heat, he he... 

I see, you are SWEATilicious...! 

[hubag bohol]

I see, you are SWEATilicious...! 

He he, I believe in the theory of glandular secretions... 

[Scarb]

He he, I believe in the theory of glandular secretions... 

And..i believe the  existence of powerlicious Opaw extract§  (bahakhak)

[hubag bohol]

And..i believe the  existence of powerlicious Opaw extract§  (bahakhak)

And lo and behold, caps come to the rescue to hide the naked existence... 

[Vistabel]

Opinion lang po.
how can a scientific tests, experiments be conducted, and be able to raise conclusion into something that does not exist. therefore, Science indicates that there is no god.

but, i believe God. this is only a discusyon. hehehhehe  

[Scarb]

And lo and behold, caps come to the rescue to hide the naked existence... 

Condom witholding tax..whop§ the power of pseudo camouflage thru Caps ..pala..ka..!

[hubag bohol]

Condom witholding tax..whop§ the power of pseudo camouflage thru Caps ..pala..ka..!

Con dominus vobis cum? 

Kini maoy Aha! nag camouflage pala ka!...

[Scarb]

 Anaconda is watching over us..pls take ur Caps ,tyahaha

Con dominus vobis cum? 

Kini maoy Aha! nag camouflage pala ka!...

[Vistabel]

Con dominus vobis cum? 

Kini maoy Aha! nag camouflage pala ka!...

timos man siguro na . hehehehhe 

[Scarb]

 palaka na nga nagpa as if nga anaconda..mikorog kos kahadlok gud.(sa binale)

[hubag bohol]

Anaconda is watching over us..pls take ur Caps ,tyahaha

Oi, lain na pud ni nga takoban? 

[hubag bohol]

timos man siguro na . hehehehhe 

He he, dia ra ang nag-camouflage nga timos...

[Scarb]

 Mao ra nay timos nga camelon..haragaa..! tabang..

[Scarb]

Oi, lain na pud ni nga takoban? 

Check the agokoy in the bukag 

[Vistabel]

Check the agokoy in the bukag 

katawa sa duha ka itoi oi. hahaahaha


itoi ni bai hubs

[Vistabel]

palaka na nga nagpa as if nga anaconda..mikorog kos kahadlok gud.(sa binale)

bwahahaha..kana jud Mr. / Mrs. dapat sila ang mahadlok 

[Lorenzo]

Opinion lang po.
how can a scientific tests, experiments be conducted, and be able to raise conclusion into something that does not exist. therefore, Science indicates that there is no god.

but, i believe God. this is only a discusyon. hehehhehe 

Vistabel,

You do not make any sense at all. The question that you raised : "how can a scientific tests, experiments be conducted , and be able to raise conclusion into something that does not exist. therefore, science indicates that there is no god?" makes absolutely no sense. You are answering your own question, and you have effectively placed a blanket umbrella that 'Science' is free from error (error is integral to science, mind you). From analysis, it seems to me that you are referring to the notion of Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol (a part of scientific research).

When you present a scientific question in a scientific paper, it is advised that you do not infer a counter-argument to your intended hypothesis. In laymen's words, you do not ask a question and indirectly place an answer to said question while attempting to raise the question.

When you said, "...and be able to raise conclusion into something that does not exist...." that already tells the reader that you do not believe in God. And then you end it with a repetitive, "therefore , science indicates that there is no god."

But you say that you also believe in a God.

~~

If you know how to write a paper or have actually read an actual scientific paper (which includes a proposal, introduction, materials & methods, data & research, discussion and conclusion) you will know that science and scientific experiments DO NOT PROVE anything.

Scientific articles , which uses the art of data reasearch and implements Qi square tables, ANOVA techniques and statistics to support or counter the null hypothesis. Confidence interval of a p-value of <0.05 is the criterium for this decision (supporting or rejecting a null hypothesi).

And so, when we write a scientific paper one does not say, "WE PROVE THAT...." or say that "WE DO NOT PROVE THAT...". No.

If the hypothesis that one set out to study had positive correlative values and had a positive confidence interval, and had a P-value of <.05 then one would say that the hypothesis showed positive correlation etc etc, or if it didn't then one would say that there was negative correlation and therefore state the human errors that could have played a role in said results.

Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol requires a substance / material to be studied and subjected to statistical analysis in order to make any conclusion on the subject matter. Since we cannot capture or place God in a machine and dissect Him into pieces necessary for said tests, then it is impossible to even place him in the criteria in questioning his existence by Empirical, Testable, Demonstrable Protocol.

Therefore,

Science Cannot disprove God's existence.



The way scientists write papers is not to 'prove' or 'disprove' anything, but to support that there is positive correlation or negative correlation in regards to a particular scientific processes in life/nature/molecular & biochemical pathway. There are no tru 'proofs' in science, considering the fact that there is and always be the underlying non-moving notion of 'Human Error' which can reduce or increase intervals being tested. And then there is always this little thing we call in biochemical research as "Mutation", which seems to counter and even destroy 'truths' in Medical Biochemistry.




Best,
Lorenzo.

[Chongki]

anu ni?

[Scarb]

Vistabel,

You do not make any sense at all. The question that you raised : "how can a scientific tests, experiments be conducted , and be able to raise conclusion into something that does not exist. therefore, science indicates that there is no god?" makes absolutely no sense. You are answering your own question.


Best,
Lorenzo.

hala ka  jehehe whops 

[Scarb]

anu ni?

Kana gud..mao na partz whehehe

[Lorenzo]

hala ka  jehehe whops 

Hehehe. I know I am very direct. But if there is a problem , I will address it. I am only being honest.

[hubag bohol]

[Vistabel]

I heard a story....The Sun had many kids and he asked them to live on the Earth. Those who stayed closest to him turned dark (like Africans), those who stayed a little away from their father turned tan ( like South Asians), those who went further away from him became fair ( like Europeans etc) and those who went away the farthest...became pale and developed smaller eyes, since they had to strain their eyes to see their father.

so, the Sun (God).

No offense, It is just a story I heard

[ms da binsi]

true! true! true!