God's existence

yes you can be ridiculed and accepted simultaneously, 'Science' itself does not believe in religion, but accepts it as part of the world. So you're saying because you 'think' God exists therefor it is. 'Do you demand from your friends that they perform some sort of "physical act" before you trust them?' Yes that is how social standings work. Would you befriend someone that did misdeeds to you, or is talking and learning who they are not classed as a physical act. You cannot trust someone unless you know who they are. This learning of a person would be no different to learning who God is. I never bought up trust, having a friend that you accept trust of comes from a foundation of understanding, you could not possibly gain that trust from a being that is non-existent. 'God exploits power to prove to you his physical presence? ' - nope I'm not saying that , first of all you are now implying that this 'power' has a conscious and that it has found the human race somewhat significant. Second he certainly isn't exploiting his power because there is nothing there to detect. ' Scientific theory is not a "rulebook" ' of course it isn't it's a book of rules. Theories are Ideas set into minds of people that are trying to write a rule book. Example: when you drop a rock on Earth it falls towards the centre, this is a rule it is fact you cannot change it. Things that we cannot test we make theories; we then try to prove those theories to put them in this rule book. Science is the confirmation of fact, doing everything in our power to do so. By telling the world that science should stop looking is like me telling you to stop believing. Also what would your response be if science were to prove the existence of God? What would your reaction to that scenario be? 'However, the example is nothing but derived from tangible observations ' So you are saying that if you were to climb up on a hill and look over you would be able to tell that the world was round, in similar respects the Earth was also referred to as a flat disc for hundreds of years. The point being made is that without observation there cannot be confirmation. Saying that looking for God is wrong and impossible is not scientific, that is religious accepting what cannot be seen 'blind faith'. We must improve our search if we are too find proof, instead of 'stop looking we believe it's there.' You seem to agree here, science is a big waffle of ideas they cannot all be correct. You have read this statement wrong; you read it as nature maths is limited by nature. In fact maths can predict nature, it can give it definition. Result of observation of nature would mean that math would not be self-sufficient. Science is the translation of math into the workings of nature, the two definitions are interchangeable. 'is it art?' no maths agrees that math is math it stands on its own it is its own definition. It's abstractness is the bits that need to be figured out, which is what is happening. In this case being that if anything were to cause such a phenomena than there would be traces left, something that would have needed that magnitude to create anything (especially after the universe had been created and interfered with to create Earth) would leave evidence. By being wrong at a level of about 10 ^-100 would leave an accurate representation of what we are looking at. '...completely ignorant of the theory of special relativity' (whole part intended) no I never assumed your intellect. I'm saying that it is fact, something that has been proven. By asking an abstract question like 'does God exists?' or 'how long is a piece of string?' you will only ever get the same response of I don't know. Measure it to make it fact, or at least a close representation to the answer. That is the beauty of science, by finding things out we ask more questions. It is infinite yes, a cycle of Q and A sometimes the answers will be wrong, but when they are right we make sure they are, and yes I as a human can ask questions, but as a scientist I would try to figure them out. There is a difference between saying 'is there really a universal speed limit?' and finding out. 'nicknamed "the God Particle"? ' 1.) not proven, very very probable it exists. 2.) named God particle because it gives everything substance it is the reason things have mass. 3.) no relation to a supernatural being at all 'theory of everything' this is not close to being finished, it is a speculative idea come up by the people that are at the front line of physics that think it is possible it could exists. Plus it would not stop science if this theory is found out No I do not wish for a moral debate on Gods existence, the reason being that the first part denies evolution, and has been disproven at high school level science. Also the fact that you are willing to admit that science changes it's point of view shows the incompetence of religion keeping to a set view. 'So, basically your saying "the book of Earth Studies...' No I'm saying that Earth has a lot left unknown, but most surface things that you could question in everyday life will have an answer now Yes by finding out facts we prevent ignorance, the virtuity of science is dependent on how you look at it. The disproof of God may already exist, but for ethical reasons and to preserve the belief of millions it has not been published. You only use Christian examples, what proof is it that this God is the God. Similarly: why would the human race be given any significance in a universe. By saying that an unknown is impossible to figure out and therefor the conclusion to this must mean God is like saying 'I have no idea where this carpet was made, God did it.' God is an idea based on the insecurity that life has no overall purpose other than to die, what you do your life will/can be memorable, but the human set back is that we want more importance than what we have therefor giving us a purpose to work for after death. By asking a loose question about something that has little evidence will get a loose answer without much evidence. Abstract questions may seem like they help your argument, but if in 100 years' time a GCSE student can explain special relativity he abstract questions will become more abstract and what you say now will appear less informed. People used to question gravity it doesn't happen anymore, it is apparent that it is. So yes science hasn't gotten as far as your questions yet, but it will do, and more people in your position will ask similar more abstract/complex questions, and scientists will need to answer them. So don't you think that if a question like 'does God exist?' lasts so long and still has no evidence that it's not that scientists can't find it, but religion is closing it's ears and just saying science you're wrong Finally why is it that you question sciences strive to find it and that lack of evidence states that it probably doesn't exist. Yet you can be determined by your own beliefs so much that you do not even need evidence?