Prove that God exists

[GameOver22]

DeadNotSleeping said:

Runa216 said:
Furthermore, if anyone wants to continue to attempt to discredit scientific knowledge, then I challenge you to find a flaw in the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

Best of luck to you. If you cannot think up a less biased, more accurate way to prove what is and what is not, then STOP SAYING THAT SCIENCE DOESNT PROVE THINGS. There is nothing more frustrating than a group of people who collectively are unable to see the evidence laid RIGHT out in front of them. It's even worse when certain...spiritual types are all "Where's the proof? where's the missing link? Your evidence is inconclusive" While arguing an opposing viewpoint that has even less proof (read: virtually none), and expect to be respected.

So have fun.

The Scientific Method is the best system we have at the moment, but it is grievously flawed.  For one thing, it is not a fraud detection system.  It is easy to read the reports and deduce the validity of their methods, but if someone fabricated results it is not so obvious.  The strange belief that there's a positive correlation between vaccines and Autism is a testament to this.

Secondly, bias influences the peer review process; there are many scientists out there who are not so pure as to permit contradictory conclusions to their own hypotheses to gain momentum; indeed, some throw their weight around to suppress new discoveries that threaten their own work.  When corporations finance scientific research, this becomes commonplace.

Finally, there is a disparity between nations when it comes to representation in scientific journals.  Even in cases where the methods and conclusions are quite reasonable, research and discoveries made by those in developing nations is admittedly underrepresented by the scientific community. People also erroneously conclude that a lack of data acquired by the Scientific Method equates to the absence of phenomena.

The Scientific Method is the best system we have but it is far, far from perfect.  At its best, it is a tool for critical thinking.  At its worst, it is a device to reject information even when it is correct.  And it does not prove things.  It sets the parameters for making the most educated conclusions based on present understanding.  That's why things change as new discoveries are made.  Scientific Laws only apply to mathematics; universal constants (although new discoveries suggest that the Laws of Physics are different elsewhere in the universe), and should an event arise where the Law fails, all science based upon it must be ba cast aside.

This is why there are Theories, the closest thing to Laws that can exist without mathematics to back it up, Laws the closest things to Facts as far as we know.  Now you know why there's Mendel's Laws of Heredity, but evolution remains a Theory.

It seems like everybody ignored your post, but I think you raise a number of good points. The one thing I always found ironic about the scientific method is that it actually utilizes an invalid argument form (affirming the consequent). The way the scientific method is structured, it says,

1. If hypothesis A is true, B will be observed.

2. B is observed.

3. Therefore, hypothesis A is true. 

This is an invalid argument form. As a counterexample:

1. If there is fire, then there is oxygen.

2. There is oxygen

3. Therefore, there is fire.

Obviously, this is false because the presence of oxygen does not mean there is fire. In the same way, the first argument is false because the presence of B does not mean hypothesis A is true. This is why there is such an emphasis on repeatability in science, and scientists are always quick to point out they don't prove theories. The best they can do is repeatably confirm them, and they argue that repeated confirmation allows theories to become knowledge.

Overall, I agree with you that the scientific method is the best system we have for gaining knowledge about the empirical world, but it is still a flawed system.