Prove Allah exists

[marwen]

this is a double post. please don't reply.
lol

 

[Trumble]

Duplicate, please ignore (or delete)

 

[Trumble]

For you a scientific theory is either wrong or impossible to prove ? Is that applicable to all theories that can exist ? So the whole science will be a fiction.

A scientific theory, or to be precise the prevailing scientific theory, is simply our best explanation for a set of empirical observations. As soon as no longer adequately explains our observations, it is clearly in need of either revision, or outright rejection.

You give good examples yourself. It once was theorized that the earth was a sphere, but it is not! That theory was rejected as it could not accomodate Newton's application of his own 'laws' to the problem, and he first suggested it was in fact an oblate spheriod, which while very close is not a sphere. But, those very Newtonian laws (An33za please note, 'LAWS') turned out to be applicable only as a special case. Yet before Einstein everyone was perfectly happy to accept them as despite a huge wealth of astronomical observations being taken, none seemed to contradict them, or those that did were quietly ignored or assumed to be observational mistakes. Yet while you can (and we did) send a man to the moon based purely on Newtonian physics as the relevant relativistic effects are minimal, for the vast majority of phenomena in the Universe (if not our pereception of it), they do not apply.

A theory can be proved, so it becomes a fact. And it can be disproved so it becomes false and rejected.

That is simply untrue, there are no such 'facts'. A particular observation or observations may be facts, but the explanation for them can only be (at best) a theory. That is why, in this context, evolution is no different from general relativity. It is the accepted scientific theory because it best explains the wealth of empirical evidence we have. As importantly, while there are a great many things it can not (currently) explain there are none that demonstrate it is not 'true' even if it may need some tweaking. And it gets forgotten very quickly that there has been a considerable amount of such tweaking since Darwin's time.

 

[Zafran]

salaam

Yeah science the "best" guess work we have at this moment in time. Its funny how some miltant athiests believe its the be all and end all.

edit - by the way i saw the exact same thread on another forum as well - I believe this guy is trolling (the tread starter).

peace

 

[marwen]

A scientific theory, or to be precise the prevailing scientific theory, is simply our best explanation for a set of empirical observations. As soon as no longer adequately explains our observations, it is clearly in need of either revision, or outright rejection.

You give good examples yourself. It once was theorized that the earth was a sphere, but it is not! That theory was rejected as it could not accomodate Newton's application of his own 'laws' to the problem, and he first suggested it was in fact an oblate spheriod, which while very close is not a sphere. But, those very Newtonian laws (An33za please note, 'LAWS') turned out to be applicable only as a special case. Yet before Einstein everyone was perfectly happy to accept them as despite a huge wealth of astronomical observations being taken, none seemed to contradict them, or those that did were quietly ignored or assumed to be observational mistakes. Yet while you can (and we did) send a man to the moon based purely on Newtonian physics as the relevant relativistic effects are minimal, for the vast majority of phenomena in the Universe (if not our pereception of it), they do not apply.

What you say is good, and quite beneficial as it shows the fact that science is not always trustful.
But that's not exactly the answer to my point. First, If some theory T1 is disproved, that doesn't mean, all theories can't be true (I know you know that, but just to make ideas more clear). Second, if a theory T2 is proved as true (with a certain proving system), but then it turned out to be wrong. This doesn't mean that any theory is by convention impossible to prove. We simply were wrong about T2, because the proving system we used was not good, or because the description of that theory was not precise enough.
Let me put a little logical example with the following propositions :
i- a theory T="it rained this morning" (I'm not sure if this theory is true or not).
ii- a proposition P1 = "the wheater is cold"
iii- a proposition P2 = "the street is wet".

I'll use the propositions P1 and P2 to prove that the theory T is true, using the following proving method : M
M = "if the street is wet and the weather is cold, then it rained this morning".
I'll note this implication this way : P1, P2 ===> T (if P1 is true, and P2 is true, then T is true).

Now I'm sure my theory T is true. But when my friend come to me and tell me he was outside all this morning and he's sure it was not rainy, but he saw a worker cleaning the street with water. Now my theory T turned to be wrong. What does this mean ? This mean that one of the hypothesis P1 or P2 is not true, or my proving method M was wrong (indeed the street can be wet without rain).

This simple logical example sums up what you're saying above. But that does not mean every scientific theory is not possible to prove. It can be proved in a given "system of proving". Now if the basic laws of this system that we use to prove are not good, that's another problem. But until a theory is totally disproved, there is a chance that the theory can be proved. If a theory has not a chance to be proved as true one day, then it'll be insane to consider it as a scientific basis.

That is simply untrue, there are no such 'facts'. A particular observation or observations may be facts, but the explanation for them can only be (at best) a theory. That is why, in this context, evolution is no different from general relativity. It is the accepted scientific theory because it best explains the wealth of empirical evidence we have. As importantly, while there are a great many things it can not (currently) explain there are none that demonstrate it is not 'true' even if it may need some tweaking. And it gets forgotten very quickly that there has been a considerable amount of such tweaking since Darwin's time.

I'm still confused about what you're saying. I mean you're still insisting on the fact that a theory cannot be proved. I don't know, if you mean by theory = a not yet proved claim, or you may have a different definition of what a theory is. But if you consider a theory as a guess or a claim that can be true or false, then no, you're wrong. A theory is made because it seemed to be probably true from a certain observation. And if it's not yet proved, and we still using it, then that's because it has a big chance to be proven as true one day in a certain science (proving) system, or can be disproved as well.

But if we proved the truth of a theory T 100 years ago, but today, that theory T turned to be false, then the problem is with our system (the science itself), and not with the fact that a theory cannot be proved.

hope this clarified my point.

 

[Hamayun]

He seems to be ignoring the posts that are beyond his comprehension and replying to ones that aren't actually relevant to the topic.

Clearly a troll looking for an argument. I wouldn't waste my breath.

 

[espada]

A gnat

 

[جوري]

a gadfly.. :haha:

 

[Lynx]

I'm still confused about what you're saying. I mean you're still insisting on the fact that a theory cannot be proved. I don't know, if you mean by theory = a not yet proved claim, or you may have a different definition of what a theory is. But if you consider a theory as a guess or a claim that can be true or false, then no, you're wrong. A theory is made because it seemed to be probably true from a certain observation. And if it's not yet proved, and we still using it, then that's because it has a big chance to be proven as true one day in a certain science (proving) system, or can be disproved as well.

But if we proved the truth of a theory T 100 years ago, but today, that theory T turned to be false, then the problem is with our system (the science itself), and not with the fact that a theory cannot be proved.

hope this clarified my point.

The reason why a theory in science can never be proved is because things are only proven in logic. Logic uses a deductive method which yields 100% certainty and deduction leads to 100% certainty because, in a deduction, you can never go beyond what you already assume to be true. Deduction is useless in discovering things about the world because deduction does not tell you what is actually true; it only tells you what are tautologies. Since only logic gives u 100% truth then it follows there's a chance for everything demonstrated outside of logic to not be true (since their probabilities are < 100%). Hence scientific facts are really theories since they can't go beyond 99.99...% certainty on whether they are true or not. For the sake of simplicity, we just call things that have an abundance of evidence as 'facts' such as the 'fact' that the speed of light is constant. This does not mean science doesn't work it just means we need to understand why logic gives us 100% truth and why this method does not work in determining empirical facts.

 

[marwen]

The reason why a theory in science can never be proved is because things are only proven in logic. Logic uses a deductive method which yields 100% certainty and deduction leads to 100% certainty because, in a deduction, you can never go beyond what you already assume to be true. Deduction is useless in discovering things about the world because deduction does not tell you what is actually true; it only tells you what are tautologies. Since only logic gives u 100% truth then it follows there's a chance for everything demonstrated outside of logic to not be true (since their probabilities are < 100%). Hence scientific facts are really theories since they can't go beyond 99.99...% certainty on whether they are true or not. For the sake of simplicity, we just call things that have an abundance of evidence as 'facts' such as the 'fact' that the speed of light is constant. This does not mean science doesn't work it just means we need to understand why logic gives us 100% truth and why this method does not work in determining empirical facts.

Yes. I agree with that. The point is we are using the same logical proving process with scientific theories. That makes the scientific theory subject to be proven or disproved. But what makes our proving system correct or not is how accurate are the basic axioms and deduction rules (scientific laws) that we admit as true in the first place to develop our deduction.

 

[Lynx]

Yes. I agree with that. The point is we are using the same logical proving process with scientific theories. That makes the scientific theory subject to be proven or disproved. But what makes our proving system correct or not is how accurate are the basic axioms and deduction rules (scientific laws) that we admit as true in the first place to develop our deduction.

Well then what's the argument about? This is obviously what the other posters meant when they said nothing can be proven in science. You can't prove anything in science because science does not have self-evident axioms. The axioms in science have the possibility of not being true (because they are not tautological as is in logic) and that possibility is why scientists call their even most well supported theories as 'theories.

 

[marwen]

Well then what's the argument about? This is obviously what the other posters meant when they said nothing can be proven in science. You can't prove anything in science because science does not have self-evident axioms. The axioms in science have the possibility of not being true (because they are not tautological as is in logic) and that possibility is why scientists call their even most well supported theories as 'theories.

I'm ok with what you said in the previous post. But that's not the idea I was talking about previously with Trumble :
In order to work, science has to admit some basic axioms and laws as true (at least for now). Then theories are to be proved or disproved within these laws. Yes nothing is absolutely true from the outside. But within a conventional scientific frame, you can prove the truth or the untruth of a certain statement or theory.
All this off topic discussion is triggered by the reflection about the evolution theory. What I need is a proof of that theory within the actual state of sciences (natural or physical sciences).
All I got as answers is : theories can't be proved. Well this is not right. Theories can be proved using the existing scientific evidences, no matter how long these evidences will remain as true axioms, but for now we have to work within the existing scientific system.
But If it's not possible to prove the evolution theory right now, why consider it a basis for further scientific developments ?

Hope my idea is clear. Need to sleep now.

 

[Lynx]

All I got as answers is : theories can't be proved. Well this is not right. Theories can be proved using the existing scientific evidences, no matter how long these evidences will remain as true axioms, but for now we have to work within the existing scientific system.
But If it's not possible to prove the evolution theory right now, why consider it a basis for further scientific developments ?

Hope my idea is clear. Need to sleep now.

Well I think this is just because when you said 'proved' they thought you meant proven in the way a logical proof is made. Science can never do that as you know. I guess you had to have asked 'show me the evidence for evolution and why it is so accepted by scientists'. This is more in-tune with how scientists talk about their theories and so-called facts.
Anyway,
The question of why is the theory of evolution the paradigm that is currently accepted by most experts in the field is a matter of simply researching it. Obviously no one on a forum can teach the whole of evolutionary theory so you just have to read on the topic.

This is the site that most people give out. it's a good resource written by several phds in the field.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

this is way beyond the OP so i will leave it at that. it seems everything is cleared up and evolution has been discussed billions of times.

 

[DuncG]

An33za,

As Trumble has pointed out, above, laws can be disproven. Newton's Law of Gravity, for example, was replaced by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (that introduced new laws of motion under gravitational fields that successfully predicted the bending of light by gravity and correctly calculated Mercury's orbit etc.). Laws are not the apex of science, Theories are. A Law is simply a relationship that affects all objects that undergo the situation in question - they are generic prediction tools. However, they offer no underlying explanation for why that relationship is accurate. A Theory does provide the underlying explanation and any Laws implicit in the Theory should be able to be derived from the Theory. Theories 'outrank' Laws as a result and are what science strives to develop in order to increase our understanding of reality.


marwen,

I don't think we need to accept anything as absolutely true - solipsism can't be disproven which makes it a moot point in any case. All I think is necessary is to take a pragmatic approach and make sure that any conclusion you wish to draw has a rational basis and is supported by the available evidence (with, of course, the caveat that the conclusion may turn out to be wrong if new evidence arises).

Anyway, you've clarified that you don't mean 'prove' in an absolute sense, and Lynx's link to talkorigins.org should provide you with enough evidence to understand why the Theory of Evolution is currently accepted as the best explanation for the diversity of life-forms found in nature.


But are you sure that muslims are not claiming to know the absolute truth? I've seen it written plenty of times, both on this site and elsewhere, that Islam is 'the truth' (with no qualifiers saying this is a tentative conclusion), that it is the ultimate revelation etc. I believe the Qu'ran even refers to itself as perfect, which is synonymous with being absolute, and that any change to its writings is blasphemous due to it then being less-than-perfect. I'd be really interested to find out if Islam didn't adhere to making absolute claims as that would make it different to other religions in not being a dogmatic ideology.

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

An33za,

As Trumble has pointed out, above, laws can be disproven. Newton's Law of Gravity, for example, was replaced by Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (that introduced new laws of motion under gravitational fields that successfully predicted the bending of light by gravity and correctly calculated Mercury's orbit etc.). Laws are not the apex of science, Theories are. A Law is simply a relationship that affects all objects that undergo the situation in question - they are generic prediction tools. However, they offer no underlying explanation for why that relationship is accurate. A Theory does provide the underlying explanation and any Laws implicit in the Theory should be able to be derived from the Theory. Theories 'outrank' Laws as a result and are what science strives to develop in order to increase our understanding of reality.


marwen,

I don't think we need to accept anything as absolutely true - solipsism can't be disproven which makes it a moot point in any case. All I think is necessary is to take a pragmatic approach and make sure that any conclusion you wish to draw has a rational basis and is supported by the available evidence (with, of course, the caveat that the conclusion may turn out to be wrong if new evidence arises).

Anyway, you've clarified that you don't mean 'prove' in an absolute sense, and Lynx's link to talkorigins.org should provide you with enough evidence to understand why the Theory of Evolution is currently accepted as the best explanation for the diversity of life-forms found in nature.


But are you sure that muslims are not claiming to know the absolute truth? I've seen it written plenty of times, both on this site and elsewhere, that Islam is 'the truth' (with no qualifiers saying this is a tentative conclusion), that it is the ultimate revelation etc. I believe the Qu'ran even refers to itself as perfect, which is synonymous with being absolute, and that any change to its writings is blasphemous due to it then being less-than-perfect. I'd be really interested to find out if Islam didn't adhere to making absolute claims as that would make it different to other religions in not being a dogmatic ideology.

Scientific theories are the most useless ridiculous bunch of speculation I have seen in my life and any person who is willing to accept them is dim-witted at best.

If a theory is right you won't call it a theory right? It would be something proved - which by definition means that its a nice word for speculation.

Of course we do not consider these as speculations as the people who babble them are half-gods, wear suits and speak in the awe inspiring tongue of mathematics which makes everything they say immediately undebatable.

All this math is in the case of science is a shield to show how far fetched and useless all these theories are and how much the people how come up with them don't have a clue what they are talking about. A petty attempt to explain the world without giving credit to it's creator Allah blessed be he - such an attempt lasts only because he let's it - in my opinion, not for long before this circus would be forced to come to its senses.

p.s You have a confusion. A theory can be disproved where a law cannot. A law can only be changed or extended because a law by definition not about correct or incorrect it is about following and not following - if something follows the law it is part of it - if you find something that does not follow the law - the law required an extension to understand what to do in this case - these are the way laws are. All laws - by definition.

 

[Ramadhan]

But are you sure that muslims are not claiming to know the absolute truth? I've seen it written plenty of times, both on this site and elsewhere, that Islam is 'the truth' (with no qualifiers saying this is a tentative conclusion), that it is the ultimate revelation etc. I believe the Qu'ran even refers to itself as perfect, which is synonymous with being absolute, and that any change to its writings is blasphemous due to it then being less-than-perfect. I'd be really interested to find out if Islam didn't adhere to making absolute claims as that would make it different to other religions in not being a dogmatic ideology.

I think the mistake lies in people trying to emphasize what they believe in without really understanding what it means.
I am sure no muslim would ever claim they know absolute truth, because as muslims, anything absolute lies with Allah SWT, so only Him posses absolute truth.

However, as muslims, we have 100% belief (note that it is not absolute) that Allah SWT has provided us with Islam and the Qur'an as guidance to live our life.

As for changing the Qur'an and changing interpretations of holy sciptures, well we know what happened to the other religions who had no qualms about changing their scriptures, right?

 

[DuncG]

Gabriel Ibn Yus,

Scientific theories are the most useless ridiculous bunch of speculation I have seen in my life and any person who is willing to accept them is dim-witted at best.

I do not understand why you would say this when you are using a computer and the internet to write it. The technology you are using would not exist without Quantum Theory and the Theory of Thermodynamics. Likewise, you have probably been innoculated against certain diseases or at least live in a population that has undertaken innoculation programmes - innoculations that would not have been produced without the Germ Theory of Disease. You and all of us on this board almost certainly owe our lives to scientific Theories.

If a theory is right you won't call it a theory right?

You are equivocating. The colloquial use of the word 'theory' is not the same as the scientific use of the term 'Theory'. A scientific Theory is a detailed explanation of why we observe certain sets of facts and, in some cases, why some observed Laws are the way they are. The colloquial use of 'theory' to mean speculation or a hunch is not applicable to scientific Theories.

A theory can be disproved where a law cannot. A law can only be changed or extended because a law by definition not about correct or incorrect it is about following and not following ...

If you change or extend a Law due to new facts that have come to light then you are tacitly admitting that the original Law was incorrect. Newton's Law of Gravity depended upon an inverse-square relationship that has been demonstrated to be incorrect under certain conditions. The extension produced the Theory of General Relativity with a new, more accurate Law of Gravity inherent to it. Laws can thus be demonstrated to be wrong and adapted in exactly the same way that scientific Theories can be.


naidamar,,

However, as muslims, we have 100% belief (note that it is not absolute) ...

How is '100% belief' not being absolute in your belief? You haven't left any room for doubt by stating 100% belief, so therefore you are absolutely sure about your belief. Do you admit that there is any possibility, no matter how small, that the Qu'ran did not come from God? If not, then how is your belief anything less than absolute concerning this alleged fact?

As for changing the Qur'an and changing interpretations of holy sciptures, well we know what happened to the other religions who had no qualms about changing their scriptures, right?

The religions diversified, some disappeared and some remained. Mormonism is the one that springs to mind most readily.

 

[Ramadhan]

naidamar,,
How is '100% belief' not being absolute in your belief? You haven't left any room for doubt by stating 100% belief, so therefore you are absolutely sure about your belief. Do you admit that there is any possibility, no matter how small, that the Qu'ran did not come from God? If not, then how is your belief anything less than absolute concerning this alleged fact?

I was responding to your post which alleged that muslims claim to know the absolute truth.
of course I am absolutely sure about my belief, that is different from claiming to know the absolute truth.
Do you get the difference?
And yes, I am 100% certain that the Qur'an is from God.

The religions diversified, some disappeared and some remained. Mormonism is the one that springs to mind most readily.

And yet, only Islam that maintains the scripture that is unchanged from when it was revealed.
And only Islam whose followers (muslims) pray daily 5 times in exact manners as the prophet (SAAS) was.
etc..etc...

 

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

I do not understand why you would say this when you are using a computer and the internet to write it. The technology you are using would not exist without Quantum Theory and the Theory of Thermodynamics.

You should check your grasp of science.

This computer has nothing to do with Quantum physics neither does it has any thing to do with Thermodynamics. I do not say that to debunk you just to point your attention to the fact that if you want to be a scientist you have to understand that the fact that a computer works cannot be held as a proof that a scientific theory which has nothing to do with it is true. This is nice on the level of emotional attachment - but it is not rational neither is it a healthy thinking method.

Also you have a confusion between a theory and a model.

Thermodynamics which you refer to is a bunch of formulas which forms a model. I have nothing against that and
if it is useful to build technology - and you are happy with this technology - go ahed - I won't stop you.

However - I am against building silly theories around these models which aside from being silly contribute nothing
to our understanding. From instance Quatnum theory is such a thing and aside from a bunch of babble I have not
gained from it any real insight about anything. Ok, the experiments might work - but to tell you that the conclusions
are not foolish - I cannot.

Also - can please enlighten me and give an example of a piece of technology that was developed due to Quantum physics - aside maybe to the atom bomb (which is debatable because - frankly none of us here really knows how to make one of these things, I hope).

So why do most physicists in the university work on quantum physics or any other far fetched theory today - and hardly anybody or more accurately NOBODY is working on a serious gasoline replacement? Is it not so important - ahha yes - the dudes who are deciding the budgets for the universities are also
the ones who run the oil companies - so I guess they want you to feel smart as long as it does not mean that you would stop buying their crap (in more than one way)

So my advice to you - don't see science as one piece. Take from it what is useful and leave the crap away. How do you know is something is crap or not - usually if they have to market it and show you this on tv - it's crap. Nobody in tv is about educating you.

If you can build from it technology and you feel that it empowers you. I would be the last person on earth to tell you that something like this is bad. However, you must check very good that it indeed does.

Likewise, you have probably been innoculated against certain diseases or at least live in a population that has undertaken innoculation programmes - innoculations that would not have been produced without the Germ Theory of Disease. You and all of us on this board almost certainly owe our lives to scientific Theories.

This is one of the greatest misconceptions in the world. As one thing the medicine people forget to mention to you is that the germs appeared together with science. Which is quite weird when you think about it.

Indeed - if you would look at historical accounts you would find it very hard to find accounts of plagues or diseases in Roman historical accounts. Also many ancient books contain absolutely no account of people dying from disease.
Check it out - can you tell me of a serious historical account about diseases before the black plague in Europe?

So we have been indoctrinated to think that if we would not have medicine we would die teeth-less at the age of twelve from our hands falling out - but this is not the case. One has to ask himself were do all this diseases come from.
But this is simply not the case because most of our grandfathers had quite a good lives and also their grandfathers. Just a silly illusion.

The following question is also complementary and would help your thought process - as you mentioned computers before..

Question: How creates the computer viruses? Were do they come from?

That's a good question. I mean how many bored hackers do you think there are? Millions? Come on .. a computer disease and a human disease are somewhat similar - but one has to think why are they here anyway.

Also if you would look at tribes around the world - you would say that the truth is that not only are they very healthy and live to the age of ninety usually - there is another amazing thing - some people in certain tribes never get sick - not even a flu - ever. Interesting no?

You are equivocating. The colloquial use of the word 'theory' is not the same as the scientific use of the term 'Theory'. A scientific Theory is a detailed explanation of why we observe certain sets of facts and, in some cases, why some observed Laws are the way they are. The colloquial use of 'theory' to mean speculation or a hunch is not applicable to scientific Theories.

I am sorry but you can coat it with sugar as much as you want - the two explanations are the same. It is speculation either way and the speculations are wrong. You see - people do not care about the explanations at all. They care about wether the guy wears suit or not and if he can scribble all sorts of formulas that they don't understand.

For you the definition is the following:

Guy wearing a suit and scriblling formulas - Scientific theory - completely true.

Guy with no suit speaking english - Bunch of speculation - hardly deserves attention.

That's human nature. And its foolish - just like 99% of what these suits speculate - bunch of foolishness which has nothing to do with the way things work.

If you want you can start with Newton - read his theory slowly slowly and you would see that it is FULL of holes (again when it comes to the THEORY part i.e the explanations he gives - not to his models which are correct - yet beyond the math - trivial). Do it - it's a good exercise. And no - you do not have to apply to this other monkey Einstein - do it simple - just read and think. If you need hints - I'm here.

If you change or extend a Law due to new facts that have come to light then you are tacitly admitting that the original Law was incorrect.

No - I admit it was incomplete. English please. What do you mean by correct law anyway. The law is the law and that's the end of it. The law expresses your reality and until there is no new input to your reality you do not need to change it.

You think that if people would have no about the extended cases they would have given you a damaged law. That means that in your case the new case was not known - but then you can ask - did it exist?...for the people who developed the first set of laws - it did not - so for them the law was accurate - for you not - and thus you extended it. You see the problem is that you do not understand that you are HUMAN and by that cannot know all of reality. Thus you would ALWAYS need to extend your law - that is assuming that you want to write the laws by yourself and are not willing to accept the guidance given to you by the creator whose laws are, of course, perfect.

Newton's Law of Gravity depended upon an inverse-square relationship that has been demonstrated to be incorrect under certain conditions. The extension produced the Theory of General Relativity with a new, more accurate Law of Gravity inherent to it. Laws can thus be demonstrated to be wrong and adapted in exactly the same way that scientific Theories can be.

The law of not speaking to strangers depended upon my being five years old but has been demonstrated incomplete when I took my first drive in a bus and had to buy a ticket from the bus driver. What are you trying to say by that? I am not sure that I follow. Laws are laws - they are not about correct or incorrect - they are about followed or not followed. Period. When you find that your laws are not followed - you have to think why - and then extend the law.

However, again, there is a difference between human law and divine law. Human law is not followed because of ill-phrasing of the law. Newton, if I understand correctly, in your example give an ill-phrased law - because he was not aware of other cases. Lol, funny.

Yet, divine law is always followed. When we see something that seems to us not to follow the divine law it is simply because there is something we do not understand in the law itself. However, the law is perfect and phrased perfectly in each letter and letter.

 

[titus]

Also - can please enlighten me and give an example of a piece of technology that was developed due to Quantum physics - aside maybe to the atom bomb (which is debatable because - frankly none of us here really knows how to make one of these things, I hope).

Nuclear energy. Flash drives. The laser.

By the way, this whole topic is silly. Nobody can prove the existence of God any more than someone else can disprove it. One can only explain why they believe the way that they do.