Truth is perspective, all perspectives prove true by interpretation of perspective viewer.

I will break this into sections to ease the reading. Scientific Theory:Pro states that "We can not determine truths without need of perspective, but rather use perspective to determine truth. Truth Is continually being sought out by science but it can never be had as scientific theory, "the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another" continually kills itself for new more up to date understandings and relations on the nature of the universe."The first thing I'd like to point out is the problem with your definition of scientific theory. The definition you gave appears to be from the Merriam Dictionary definition of theory alone. This definition is not specifically designated for scientific theory, but for more general terms. For example, a non-scientist could say they have a theory about how something unrelated to science works. This surely doesn't mean scientific theory though. This is from the National Academies Press: "Hypothesis: A tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. If the deductions are verified, it becomes more probable that the hypothesis is correct. If the deductions are incorrect, the original hypothesis can be abandoned or modified. Hypotheses can be used to build more complex inferences and explanations.""Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances."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.Of course, there is always a chance that a well understood scientific theory or law, such as gravity, could be flawed. But for application in every day life, it is so dependable and consistent that sane people don't question it's validity. This truth is not dependent on perspective, but rather the immense amount of evidence that anyone can observe every day. There is no logical perspective that Newton's laws of universal gravitation aren't true in the macroscale. In this circumstance, it is evident that truth can be found through science. A perspective that this law does not apply to someone's life is not true, to an astronomically high degree of certainty (I'm not trying to prove objective truth exists). "He fails to give a definition of the theory of Dark energy which postulates an expanding universe as each galaxy can be measured to be moving further away from those surrounding galaxies. A puzzling aspect of our universe which "Truth is still hidden"."I failed to give a definition of "the theory of Dark energy" because there is no such theory. As you said, Dark energy is "a hypothetical form of energy that produces a force that opposes gravity and is thought to be the cause of the accelerating expansion of the universe". As a hypothesis, it gives an idea of what is actually happening with the universe. As an example of proving that truth is perspective, I don't follow. I don't see where perspective plays a role in this. Scientists aren't necessarily true in believing one idea over another just because of a perspective they have. One may be correct, one may be wrong. Both may be correct, and both may be wrong.Also, I think there is still a misconception between what is considered paradoxical and what isn't. Two opposing forces are not paradoxical. For example, a rocket using fuel to oppose the force of gravity is perfectly rational. The laws of motion explains this in detail. The opposing forces in the universe may not be fully understood, but I don't see the paradox in this natural phenomenon. Again, a paradox is "an argument that apparently derives self-contradictory conclusions by valid deduction from acceptable premises". An example would be Curry's paradox: "If this sentence is true, then Santa Claus exists". I'll link a wiki page with a ton of examples.Perspective:Pro states: "This evidence leaves one to wonder how objective science can truly be when the results of scientific query are influenced by sheer conscious awareness. How then can we "determine truths without the need of a perspective,"?"In finding scientific explanations to questions like "why do electrons act as both waves and particles?", we don't leave things to perspective. We find the answers through the scientific method. Just because we don't have all the answers right now doesn't mean we should allow all people's perspectives to be deemed true. God and Atheism:Pro explains "I Sire, Believe God is absence of all that constitutes nature and thus can not be held by any natural law or thought derived from it. God Is Nothing, and I believe in god." If you believe in God, yet you think he is not part of the universe, then you are a Theist. An Atheist doesn't believe that God is the "absence of all that constitutes nature". They flat out disbelieve any such idea of one. As an Agnostic Deist, I could relate to the belief that God isn't part of the universe. An impersonal god makes most sense to me personally, but I am still definitely not an Atheist. "I hope I'm not as crazy as you make me feel, but then again, what is paradox?"Don't worry, I don't think you are crazy. You just have a different set of experiences and observations than me. :)Back to you.Sources:http://www.nap.edu...;http://vixra.org...;http://en.wikipedia.org...;