1. Infinity rules all
In the scientific world, all declarations of truth are merely observations. Nobody can prove why our world works the way it does, but we study patterns in the way things behave. The reason we cannot explain the true why is due to infinity. I will give an example in question and answer format:

Note: Please don't nitpick if I'm slightly off on the science. I haven't been in chemistry class in a while. The 100% accuracy is not needed for this example to make its point.

Q: Why does baking soda fizz when you mix it with vinegar?
A: They form a high energy chemical reaction when they are mixed together, and the energy from the reaction causes it to fizz.

Q: Why do they react together?
A: It is a double replacement reaction. CH3COOH + NaHCO3 ---> CH3COONa + H2CO3

Q: Why does the H switch with the Na?
A: The Hydrogen and Sodium are both +1 charges, and the reaction is spontaneous. When the baking soda dissolves, it mixes with the solution of the vinegar, and the positive and negative ions attract.

Q: Why are they both +1 charges?
A: They are ions which have one less electron than proton.

Q: Why do the positive and negative charges attract?
A: They just do.

You can take any scientific question in the universe, and if you keep asking why, the answer eventually becomes "it just does." There may be some new discovery that can prove one step further, but the world will still keep getting infinitely small, and the answer will always be the same. Say they somehow proved that positive and negative attract because of some smaller particles' behavior. Well, why do those smaller particles behave that way? They just do.

2. Faith?
The atheistic scientists often criticize God, saying there isn't enough proof. They ridicule people who say they have faith. How is having faith in God any different than having faith in no God? Science has mysterious forces. Nobody can prove why those near infinitely small things behave the way they do, yet scientists are so quick to say it is not God.

I also would like to take a step in a different direction on faith. The vast majority of scientific atheists know science at a college level or lower. Even high level researchers do not do their own research for every scientific principle. All of these people learn about science in books or articles, and take it for fact even though they never witnessed these principles first hand. How many people have seen a proton through a microscope? If you haven't how do you know for sure that protons are what actually make up part of an atom? If you have seen one in a microscope, how did you know what it was that you were looking at? My guess is that someone told you what you were looking at.

Why is it so easy to accept science on faith, but not religion? There are many religious books readily available to read, but atheists say these books are not proof of anything. At the same time, they believe anything they read about science. Why is science more logical when all science comes down to the simple answer "it just does?"

3. God
To believe in God, you don't have to think of him as any one particular form. Make your own decision on who or what he is. Try to be more open minded, though, because as long as infinity exists, you can never answer all of the world's questions without a little faith.

Fear the Chiprel!

if you created the universe would you make it like this?

Protip: Na is sodium, not nitrogen. And it actually is known why like electric charges repel and opposites attract; the reason is the exchange of virtual photons. As for the answer eventually reducing to "it just does", this is true to a point. Eventually you arrive at the Identity Principle and the Law of Non-Contradiction, which cannot be proven in the strictest sense. However, they have a perfect track record of being true, whereas your religious beliefs do not.

Maybe because proper science includes the procedure for the experiment so anyone who wants to can verify its conclusions independently, while religious experiences are not verifiable? And while it's true that a lot of atheists treat science like a religion, a good scientist is not supposed to instantly believe what they read in a journal.

Science: Gravity exists because it does, and it's something everyone can easily realize by themselves through experimentation.

Faith: God exists because someone told me it does. There's no way to prove God exists by yourself, without taking someone's word for it.

And the conclusions reached by scientists are constantly checked and re-checked by posterior scientists, so no, real scientists don't believe something works the way it does just because some guy said so.

Of course, you could argue that nobody can prove God does not exist, and you'd be right. Which is why each person's religious beliefs should be respected as long as they don't directly impact your life.

I used to respect people's religions, but then I realized how stupid it is to believe in god.

You're honestly retarded if you believe in something just because you're told to.


"How is having faith in god any different than having faith in no god."

That's dumb and doesn't even make sense. You need reasons to believe that something exists, you don't need reasons to believe that something doesn't exist.

How do you believe the universe came to be?

Can you explain the differences between atheistic science and theistic science?

Wrong,
A: It's the flow of a high energy potential to a low energy potential.

Q: Why does it flow like that?
A: Because when it does not flow, then the system is ordered. However, the entropy of a system always increases, and flow of a high energy potential to a low energy potential increases entropy because the system will become less ordered.

Q: Why does entropy always increase?
A: It is the natural order of things.

Q: Why is that thing you just said?
A: Shut the fuck up, you pseudo-intellectual.

Nope.

It is incredibly different. And for the record, not a single scientist is 'quick' to dismiss God as being the reason for why things are the way they are, instead of some other way. The only thing I can take from your post here is that you are an ignorant fool with a set ideologue that is not only incomprehensible, but incorrect because you make faulty assumptions about people much smarter than you.

Yes they have. It's called a lab. Maybe you will see one when you get to college.

You don't need to physically see something to know that it is there. Does a blind person know what a pencil is, despite never having seen it? You are a solipsist fool, equivalent to a 2 month baby who believes because he doesn't see it, it no longer exists.


It's called using intelligence. In this case, I get to rely on thousands of years of scientists who have worked on these questions before I even existed. The funny thing is, people didn't always know protons made up an atom. They had other theories. However, the correct theory is the theory that exists today.


Nobody accepts science on faith, you imbecile.

Science says: "I presume A exists. If A exists, you will observe X, Y, and Z. If you do not observe X, Y, and Z, it is because A does not exist."

THIS IS RELIGION: "I presume A exists because it exists."

Science doesn't come down to the answer "it just does". Are you seriously this stupid? Why do you think thousands of scientists around the world have devoted their lives, and billions of dollars have been spent constructing massive particle accelerators? They aren't doing it because they are bored of sitting around praying, it's because they are trying to answer the question "why does it just do that?"

Religion, on the other hand, feels like it is necessary to kill people for asking that question.


Congratulations. Now let me explain to you why your entire post is a load of garbage. If people simply answered questions about why stuff happens with "because faith" we wouldn't have progressed beyond apes sitting around in a jungle wiping our ass with our hands and smelling our armpits for fun. Not a single scientific discovery would have ever been made. Faith is for simple-minded idiots, leave the science to the people who are always asking why.

What you've outlined is essentially Agrippa's trilemma, which states that any proof of any sort, under any circumstances, will fall under one of three categories of justificatory defect:

Infinite regression.
Axiomatic (i.e. relies on statements without proof).
Circular

In order for Agrippa's trilemma to be false we'd have to reject some rather basic deductive logic.

The problem is what you conclude from this, which is that since all proofs has this defect, that science and theism are equivalent with respect to their justificatory status. But this is true only if a much stronger condition holds, which is that all proofs are equivalent in this way.

i.e. the following proof:
Jam tastes good.
I hate hippies.
Therefore Jesus was a bad elephant and invented calculus.

is no more or less justified than the following proof:
x = 2
2 > 1
Therefore x > 1

Which I'm assuming you're not committing yourself to. Note also that the proof of Agrippa's trilemma falls under the exact same category.

In short, you've established a false equivalency, committing yourself to far more than I think you want to embrace in the process.

Why so cereal?