NO, we will all find out for ourselves when we die. Either there will be black and nothing, as our brain shuts down, or there will be some sort of a spirit moving onwards. If you want to know right away, if there is a God, shoot yourself. I just don't need that verification right now!
Have you, or anyone you know, been able to verify what you have stated? Moreso, why is death the ONLY way to verify this "God"? How do you even know that death is the proper avenue to gain access to this deity? You have no evidence, no data, no way to test this prediction. Thus your argument is not scientific.
That's actually not true either. It's not how people work. Everyone that invents some theory has a preconceived vision of how the universe works and they put out there vision bolstered by some experiment or set of experiments. It's only the notion of test that gives us a winner and validates a given model and then only for a particular domain.
Incorrect. Theories aren't "invented", nor does it start with a preconceived vision. Theories start with observations and measurements. From these, predictions are made. These predictions are then validated or invalidated via additional observations and measurements. If validated, a theory is created. If not, the predictions are altered. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Charles Darwin didn't say "Hey, I think life alters itself slightly through reproduction and variation... let me set sail on a boat and find out!". He observed various lifeforms and their environment, and through these observations, made a prediction that species arise via descent with modification. Scientists have since validated this prediction with additional observations and measurements which are used to make additional predictions, such as exactly which species are descended from which ancestor.
But the larger point is that science itself, despite its falsifiability, still requires a faith. The minimum notion of science is that if someone else does something, you can do that thing yourself. It is this and this alone that makes science fact.
Science is fact through observation, testability and falsifiability. Not only can you do this thing yourself, you can predict the results of future experiments using this data and utilize it for practical purposes.
While this may be theoretically true, its certainly not practically true for most people. If the LHC people come out tomorrow and say they found the Higgs, how could I, myself, ever test that? The Higgs could have just about any number put to it and it would not make any difference to me as I could never know the absolute truth firsthand.
Peer review.
The results are verified by people who do have the ability to reproduce and test these results. Measurements are double checked, data is poured through. Even you can participate in this... if you see an error in a result, point it out.
Let's ask this: How do you know electrons exist? You don't have the ability to directly observe them, you can't test the exact measurements used to determine their existence... they could have just about any number attached to them and you wouldn't know. How could you possibly know the absolute truth firsthand?
Oh, that "computer" thing in front of you? Really... you don't say? THAT is how you know the "absolute truth". We have learned enough about them to utilize them in a productive manner.
The only thing you need is the education to be able to interpret the data.
You have to have faith in the process and the people and the institutions and the education, all that somehow its not being made up. For a lot of inquiry, you can assume that this is not the case. But, for some things, where there is big money involved, political preference, then we cannot be so sure, and those that are, doing so out of faith.
Again, peer review. Read up on the 80's cold fusion debacle. Peer review is a crucial piece of the scientific method. If false data is presented, it will stick out like a sore thumb.
Absent faith, science would fall apart just as fast as some religions do, and I would be willing to bet that the level of cynicism and distrust and lack of faith in our society has more to do with public decline in science than people realize.
You clearly do not understand the scientific method. Science requires solid fact and the data to back it up. Faith, by definition, is belief not only without evidence, but despite not having evidence. Faith cannot be observed, it cannot be tested and above all, it cannot be falsified.
I would highly recommend reading up on the scientific method of inquiry. You unfortunately know just enough to fall into flawed arguments and logical fallacies. The "science requires faith" is a classic cdesign proponentist argument and was a dead giveaway. As was the argument of "political pressure".
