God's existence

1.) Lets not confuse science as an absolute study with the Institution of Science. You said "science accepts every viewpoint no matter how ridiculed it will be." I can't be accepted and ridiculed at the same time. Ridiculing someone or something is the practice of sarcasm which is a form of psychological attack. {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments}. You go on to state: "that science cannot prove or disprove God is equally as valid me saying a Christi (I assume you wanted to spell Christianity) couldn't...." I agree, because Christian doctrine does not insist that God performs a duty. Christianity is a relationship, not a physics problem or biological study. For example: Do you demand from your friends that they perform some sort of " physical act" before you trust them? No. Wouldn't you feel indignant if your friends asked you to perform a physical act to show your trustworthiness? However, you demand that God exploits power to prove to you his physical presence? Well, what did Herod Antipas told Jesus, "turn my water into wine, and I'll let you go..." How could God the Son be subject to a command? {an example that shows science is not applied to the intangible (the abstract of "what is trust?")} You go on to state: "it is science business to figure out the intangibles the world...." Well, contemplation and reason are concepts of philosophy, and are not limited to aspects of scientific definitions. Scientific theory is not a "rulebook" upon understanding, scientific theory is a supplement upon understanding. It follows, that you try to support your claim of science being in in the business of the intangible by the use of a presumed abstract example of "someone questioning if the Earth was defined as a giant turtle?" However, the example is nothing but derived from tangible observations: Earth (a real planetary object) is its Geometric (Geo= Earth + metric=measuring) shape like that of a turtle (a real species)? Where is the abstract in that example? There is a difference between a profound question and an abstract question. {an example that shows science is not applied to the intangible} 2.) You state: "Science is a big waffle of ideas, but just because fewer people understand them does not mean they are not correct." Let us reiterate upon the notion of what is meant by "Mathematical errors". For example: at the University level of education, would we be looking for mathematical error in the form of correct addition, subtraction, multiplication, division? No, because it is expected that at the University level little common forgetful procedural mistakes have already been filter out. At the University level, we would be looking for "mathematical error" in the form of deductive characteristics. For example: we may ask "are different mathematical theorem not applicable as to explain the same scientific experiment? "Is a mathematical theorem that is applicable omitted has so as to not invalidate the explanation by producing an exception? {an example that shows scientific fact can be fallible} You go on and misquote me as: "Maths is not the result of the observation of nature...", yet afterwards restate my reasoning as your own logic by: "it is a universal way to give value too it". My statement was "if science is the observation and measurement of nature's phenomena, then math itself is the explanation of that observation and measurement." {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments} You go on to state: "math is a response to counting, it groups together." But, even Mathematicians cannot agree upon the definition of "Math". Is it defined only by the quantitative? Is it a concept, an abstract, is it art? You go on to state: "Measuring nature can be flawed, but in this day and age it's negligible especially in this case." In what case? {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments} (3) You state: "Scientists spend year's even lifetimes arguing one fact, maybe the value of a number, maybe a whole idea. Science is not the acceptance of blind faith it takes more people to see what you've written and go okay lets take this idea further,..." So basically, scientific data can be disputed, hypothesis are not always accepted, and that the truth can be sometimes compromised for the sake of advancing scientific projects for the moment. A Science by committee approach. This correlates with my previous statement: "There are no truths in Science, just answers agreed upon to be the best solution for the moment. {an example that shows scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing} You go on to state: "Nothing moves faster than the speed of light, this isn't simple and with 8000 characters given would not be enough to educate you on the matter." I've never written in this debate as to the extent of my scholastic studies upon space-time physics. I've never indicated any classes I've taken, or grades I have achieved. You have no idea as to if I completely understand the postulations of space-time mathematics, or are completely ignorant of the theory of special relativity. {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments} You go on to state: "By simply saying 'I can question these facts' shows no favour." However, questioning science shows that science is not finite in its answers, That as a prove for or against the existence of God, and unequivocal infinite amount of questions in science are raised? {an example that shows that scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing} You go on to state: "Nope I'm afraid no generation can a' we're closing the book of science' not even close to it, whoever you have heard this of is very mistaken. Like I said everything is revised to make sure we are right and more accurate." What about the Higgs particle, nicknamed "the God Particle"? What about the "theory of everything?" Are you telling me that the top physicists in the world right now are wrong in thinking that they are at the forefront of explaining everything about energy and matter? Is that not a contradicting notion on your part? {an example that shows that scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing} 4.) You go on to state: "Also the bible is flawed almost the entire way through, both scientifically and morally" However, are we through debating on the issue of Scientific Knowledge & Theologian knowledge? Are we beginning the debate on "why God allows human suffering?" Am willing to debate that now. 5.) You state: "The problem being that through wanting to discover we discovered almost everything we could that was testable on Earth." So, basically your saying "the book of Earth Studies" is just about complete, even thought your earlier statement of "Nope I'm afraid no generation can a' we're closing the book of science' not even close to it...." is a contradiction. {an example that shows that scientific knowledge is temporal, and is forever changing} You go on to state: "Finance stops the discoveries of such simple things because they will not benefit society and therefore deemed useless". However, lack of finance also stops many important scientific endeavours because of military and corporate funding desires. The politics of research grants, book deals, fellowships are not always motivated by the desire to find the "truth" in science? Can you assure me the complete virtuality of the Scientific, Academia, and Business Community in their pursuit of finding "scientific truths?" {an example that shows justification of a person's believes and ego influences scientific arguments}