In answer to: How do you know you are right?

I never said or suggested in any way that it was a scientific theory, you dolt.

 

You never cease to amaze me. I said it wasn't a scientific theory. You just said the same thing about capitalism. I never said or suggested socialism isn't backed up by scientific theories. Which is what you applied to capitalism as well.

Also, there is a lot more to the definition of a scientific theory than what you stated.

 

I'm glad you think so.

when can I expect an apology for your transparent attempt at obfuscating the truth in order to discredit me

 

You clearly lied when you said that I thought socialism was a scientific theory.

You clearly lied when you said that I thought socialism was unscientific.

I'm playing WoW at the moment; I'll get to it.

 

You got that right!

Oh and wait to once again dodge my post. You were being explicit in telling the truth. You know it.

 

You could for once use logic and determine he did not see that post.

 

Your stupidity is really beginning to annoy me. The definition of a theory in terms of science is: a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena. Now in simple terms, to relate to your elementary mental level as I have stated in previous posts, it is a hypothesis. It seems logical but is not known for sure. They allow them to be used in text books because there is nothing better. Some theories come and go, and some stick for quite some time. It works hypothetically but it can not be know for sure unless it is put to the test. The Big Bang Theory is a theory because we can't know for sure and we can't physically go back in time and watch it as it happens. Therefore, on that reasoning, it can not be used as proof because it is not known as Fact, or scientifically speaking as you appear to be so fond of, known as a Law. Now, there is my understanding of a theory... what is your's Einstein?

 

It's a bit more than that.

"(n) theory (a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena) "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory".

It usually incorporates facts, evidence, predictions, and explanations, and is logically self-consistent.

 

Well im response to all of the God and Religion comments, Religion was created to explain the things people could not explain at the timewith science. When the time comes when we can prove the non-existence of a God we have reached the highest level of science possible.

 

The idea is Blazelion.. there is no highest level of science possible. There are no limits to anything. There's always "something" greater. G-d controls what we consider to be impossible or beyond limits.

Humans have limits. But limits don't truly exist.

 

just follow your concesness however its spelled.

 

Well as i have my own beliefs that are not connected to any religion that i know of, it'll be harder for you to say that my belief is a contradiction

My beliefs-in brief
There is no god in the traditional view (an omnipotent being) but there is a creator of our world (not the universe), with powers like our own but on a much greater scale. It can create, and destroy, but it cannot control. And i believe him to be "God"

In the context of your argument, he can create but not control, so he could create a rock he could not lift without that being a contradiction.

If your going to argue that god HAS to be omnipotent, then your wrong. each religion sets what power the god they believe in has, it is not set.


What do i get if i win? A cookie?

 

Actually those are not uncommon beliefs. I believe what you are describing can be identified as deism or something along those lines. Ben Franklin was actually a strong deist.

We don't need to explain away something that cannot be explained. Nonexistent entities will not manifest their nonexistence; they cannot and there for are not.

 

It's really sad to see people arguing about a non-existent god being real... Think of it like this: what evidence is there to support the existence of a god?

 

Just because there is no evidence to support the existence of god doesn't prove that god doesn't exist.

Once again you are using another fallacy. This called Argumentum Ad Ignoratiam. Stop using fallacies.

Also, why respond to a thread that hasn't been replied to in over a month?