The Atheist Test

[Christ4Ever]

From what is apparently a Jehovah Witness brochure entitled 'Sould you believe in the Trinity?', but for which there seems to be ample historic support available in the 'net.

I studied under them for a couple of years in my pre-teen years, before I came to know Christ Jesus as my Savior. Like Islam they don't believe in the Divinity of Christ. I’m assuming that by using references by the Jehovah Witness, you’re starting to come around at least to the belief that there is a God?

Hope for you yet!

 

[BCRE8TVE]

Please read the following carefully.
What is an assumption?

Something that is accepted as true without proof.

I also wish you to know that if an assumption is made in order to test a hypothesis, and that assumption turns out to be false, then the assumption is rejected.

The assumptions of science are:

1. Nature is orderly, it has a pattern, and structure.

2. We can know nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived Empirically. [Through] senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

For all these assumptions 1-6, there is no proof, they are held to be true.

Not exactly. They are held because these assumptions are necessary in order to be able to obtain knowledge that is falsifiable and verifiable.

You must believe that the assumptions are true to accept Science.

Again, not really. You just have to accept these are the limitations of science. Anything that is not covered by these assumptions, science by definition is incapable of measuring, testing, and quantifying, thus to derive knowledge from it.

My problem is with assumptions numbers 3, and 5.

All phenomena have natural causes.
What an incredible assumption to make.
This is well beyond the scope of thought to assume.
Since, Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God.
How is it possible to make an assumption regarding natural causes?
Jesus Christ created the Universe.
Test that one Mr Scientist.

First you must understand why that assumption is necessary. By definition, something that is not natural, that is out of this world, can't be measured. This assumption makes sure EVERY explanations a scientist proposes MUST be able to be verified. One cannot explain something by saying 'This reaction occurred because of God', because then, how are other scientists to measure this claim? It's impossible. A scientist could say he obtained certain data because of God, Bigfoot, fairies, unicorns, etc etc etc, and there would be NO way to test to see whether his explanations are correct and accurate or not. That is why science limits itself to the natural world, because then it can correct its own mistakes.
Take your hypothesis for example. Jesus Christ created the universe. How would one go about testing that? You can't know how, by what mechanism, why, how much, nor how fast Jesus might have created the universe. Think about it, the fact you say Jesus Christ created the universe is because evidence in the physical universe leads you to believe Jesus did it.

Knowledge is derived empirically.
Empiricism emphasizes evidence, in experiments.
Rather than on reasoning, intuition, or revelation.
Note: Jesus Christ is revelation.
The Bible is revelation.
Empiricism is going nowhere.

In conclusion, Science is going nowhere,
it never had it in the first place.

Reasoning, intuition and revelation can mislead us very easily. Your intuition, reasoning and revelation leads you to say that God is the one true god and the creator of the universe. A Muslim's reasoning, intuition and revelation would lead him to say Allah is the one true god and the creator of the Universe. A Hindu's reasoning, intuition and revelation would lead him to say that there are a multitude of true gods, and that they created and govern the universe. So, how do you know which one is true? They are all true according to their own religious books. All religions are true according to their own beliefs. So how do you sort it all out?

Empiricism is superior to reasoning, intuition and revelation because reasoning might lead you astray . A man attempted to say pure logic was superior to everything. Logically, he could tell me that a cow was a cow and that grass was grass, but he was unable through pure logic to tell me that cows eat grass. That would require empiricism. How does the man ensure his logical method is accurate and correct? He can review his logic all he wants, but sooner or later he must compare his logic to the real world to make sure he's not off-track.
Your intuition can lead you astray. It seems very counter-intuitive that all matter behaves bothas a wave and as a particle, and yet it is true. Light behaves as a wave, with frequency and amplitude, and as a particle, because light has momentum that can be transferred to an object. Waves don't have momentum. How do you see if your intuition is indeed correct? Sometimes, intuition helps you, other times it doesn't. Intuition is not reliable.
Revelation might lead you astray. You have a revelation of God. A Jew has a revelation of YWHW. Ancient Greeks had revelation of their pantheon. Insane people have revelations of Gd telling them to do random things. How do you see which revelation is true? Again, how do you sort it out?

Empiricism gives scientists a way to rigidly define what they can and can't do, as well as the means to determine whether something is accurate or not. Revelation didn't discover electricity. Intuition didn't explain bacteria. Reasoning didn't formulate the laws of motion. Empiricism alone didn't do it all either. It was a combination of them all.

When scientists were searching for the shape of the benzene molecule, they had no idea what it looked like due to its weird properties. Then, a scientist had a revelation, and saw in a dream a snake biting its tail. He knew then that benzene was made of carbon atoms in a ring. Empirical experiences later showed this to be accurate.

When Mendel wrote his laws of genetics, he arrived at the conclusion that the phenotype and genotype of descendants could be accurately predicted. The problem was, he arrived at too perfect an answer. Using modern day methods and knowing the laws of genetics, we cannot arrive at a definite 3:1 ratio. The ratio using around 700 samples looks like 3.4 : 0.8. We therefore think that possibly Mendel knew what to expect, and by intuition he made an assumption to write his laws, which has been proven accurate using modern techniques and knowledge.

The ancient Greeks used their logic to determine many things. One Greek philosopher (I forgot the name) said that matter was made of indivisible particles. Sounds a lot like atoms, doesn't it? One other philosopher said matter was a combination of water, earth, fire and air. Which one was correct? Using only the reasoning of their time, it was impossible to determine. However, again, with modern empirical techniques, we found out that the classical philosophy of earth/fire/water/air was false.

Empiricism is not everything, it does not reign supreme. Whereas reason, intuition and revelation are human qualities, empiricism is a method to determine the validity of a claim within specific parameters.

Thus, your demand that scientists test whether Jesus Christ created the universe or not is unscientific, because 1) We cannot test it, 2) we cannot replicate it, and 3) we cannot measure it.
However, by studying the universe that Jesus supposedly created, we have found evidence showing that there was no special creation. If there had been, science would have found itself facing a wall it could not explain. That has not yet been the case.

 

[BCRE8TVE]

I studied under them for a couple of years in my pre-teen years, before I came to know Christ Jesus as my Savior. Like Islam they don't believe in the Divinity of Christ. I’m assuming that by using references by the Jehovah Witness, you’re starting to come around at least to the belief that there is a God?

Hope for you yet!

If you used an example from Greek religious philosophers destroying a claim made by the Egyptian religion of the time, would that mean you subscribe to Greek religion? Not necessarily.

I simply saw someone who did research to show that the Trinity is not an innately Christian concept, nor was it implemented from the very beginning.

It's like if you used an atheist's argument refuting another atheist's argument. It says nothing about your own beliefs.

 

[eddieb]

i would like to point out also natural selection disproves itself by its own definition. if a pre bird creature without wings grew a stub this stub would help it to survive or make it more appealing to a mate? no. however it takes "millions and millions" of years to "evolve" acording to the man of the hour, darwin. thus it would take a long time to grow from stub to wing to recieve the benifit of flight. however natural selection says it this "evolution" or as i would rather call it a freak mutation would in fact not help it to survive. it would be a hinderance. even more where has man recorded any evidence of this???? we have been around long enough man would just know if evolution happened. it dont. no records. not one sighting.
and another thing, look in to this, openmindedly. scientists have tried to re-create life in random experiments by using every method of theory they have for how life started from primeordial soup or big bangs and what is the result of every single controled experiment? that it causes more problems for these theories that are taught to children today in text books as matter in factly truth. and not once have they been able to replicate or create life. however they dont talk about this to much.
the truth is scientists dont like to have carbon dating disproven when they already came out publicly and said it is highly acurate. afterall they are supposed to be the brightest minds in the world today. and what if they are found out to be fools with only thories and no facts? perhaps the government will cut those checks to fund all thier expensive research.
the truth is science is what is proven. not what someones theory is that cannot and/or hasnt been proven. science today seems to be more about thories than fact. a good example of this would be foriensic science. go break the law and see if you can lie your way out now a days. not gonna happen. those guys prove stuff.

 

[Christ4Ever]

If you used an example from Greek religious philosophers destroying a claim made by the Egyptian religion of the time, would that mean you subscribe to Greek religion? Not necessarily.

I simply saw someone who did research to show that the Trinity is not an innately Christian concept, nor was it implemented from the very beginning.

It's like if you used an atheist's argument refuting another atheist's argument. It says nothing about your own beliefs.

What it really comes down to, is if I were to show you through scripture that the Trinity if not in word, but in concept is supported, would it change your mind in accepting the existence of God?

 

[David777]

Hello BCRE8TVE.

Hello BCRE8TVE.

There were a number of statements in your reply to my post re: assumptions of Science.

Here is one that I wish to examine BCRE8TVE.

Empiricism is superior to reasoning, intuition and revelation because reasoning might lead you astray.

How did you arrive at this conclusion, "empiricism is superior to revelation!"

It is assumed by Science that empiricism is superior to ignorance.

But, you somehow exceeded all human intellectual limitations, BCRE8TVE.

You proclaimed "Empiricism is superior to revelation".

Outside of the realm of Science, even beyond Philosophy.

Please tell me how you derived this?

 

[David777]

Again BCRE8TVE.

Assumptions in Science and BCRE8TVE's reply.

You stated,

"the fact you say Jesus Christ created the universe is because evidence in the physical universe leads you to believe Jesus did it."

I never claimed that BCRE8TVE, i told you I know this from revelation.

I never stated evidence was involved BCRE8TVE.

 

[David777]

Yo BCRE8TVE.

BCRE8TVE, I am stunned by your reply.

We were discussing the assumptions that Science is constrained by.

Revelation is outside the boundaries of Scientific assumption.

Then, and this is remarkable I must say, you quote a scientific example of a revelation that a scientist received. Here it is;

"When scientists were searching for the shape of the benzene molecule, they had no idea what it looked like due to its weird properties. Then, a scientist had a revelation, and saw in a dream a snake biting its tail. He knew then that benzene was made of carbon atoms in a ring. Empirical experiences later showed this to be accurate."

You on the one hand reject revelation and on the other admit its influence in Science.

I need clarification on this contradiction.

 

[David777]

Finally...

BCRE8TVE said,

The ancient Greeks used their logic to determine many things. One Greek philosopher (I forgot the name) said that matter was made of indivisible particles. Sounds a lot like atoms, doesn't it?

BCRE8TVE I do not know your scientific background.

Hence, I will tread lightly in answering your statement.

I think it was a fellow named Democritus, in > 300BC.

Be careful here or you will err.

Matter has atomic structure, are atoms the smallest, indivisible constitutes of matter? Certainly not, Science has already introduced quarks, i think the idea was introduced in the 1960's.

You are somewhat behind in your understanding BCRE8TVE.

I am waiting for Science to discover the dark matter and dark energy
which no doubt will exist beneath the quarks, ha, ha, who knows?

Science is a never ending story, an attempt to discover the PHYSICAL Universe.

Science is empiricism, intuition, reasoning and revelation. Regardless of the assumptions BCRE8TVE. Science is an idea, it seemed a good idea at the time. Will it reveal God, no it will not.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

There's quite a lot of error here to unpack, so this might get a tad lengthy.

My question is: can you present one piece of duplicable evidence that shows a species of x# of chromosomes can become species of y# of chromosomes?

For one thing, the number of chromosomes something has is a pretty poor indicator for much of anything. For another. . .I actually do have an example of that.

We start with two species of Spartina cordgrass, one is a European cordgrass (Species A) the other is an American species of cordgrass (Species B). When they interbreed they produce a sterile hybrid cordgrass (Species C). Because Species C cannot produce seeds it is reduced to reproduction via vegetative propagation, a process in which “new” individual plants arise without seeds or spores from parent plants, and doesn’t spread very fast as a result. However, after a while there is a polyploidy event in which during reproduction the number of chromosomes is doubled inside a cell where basically the nucleus of a cell divides but the cell doesn’t.

In our hybrid cordgrass (Species C) the result is a new species that can now reproduce sexually (Species D), and that is better able to survive in its environment. As a result it spreads faster than either Species A, B, or C. At the same time it cannot reproduce with species C, seeing as the hybrid is sexually sterile, nor can it reproduce with species A or B due to the large difference in chromosomes.

If macro evolution were true why is it that nearly every ancient culture has tales of the origins of life coming from a deity rather than from monkeys?

Because those tales arose as primitive attempts to explain where people came from and far, far post date the rise of modern humans by many tens of thousands of years.

If we did come from primates and survival of the fittest is playing a huge part of our evolution why is it that a chimpanzee has 3x the strength of a human and an ape even more than that?

Not all physical adaptations have to do with strength. Think about it (your hint is the word think).

If evolution is true, how does one that believes in it explain away the mounds of archaeological evidence that shows early man was much smarter than given credit plus all the evidence that points toward man and dinosaurs being on the earth at the same time?

Evolution explains the biodiversity of life. Ergo even if the above were true, which it obviously is not, its relevancy would be suspect.

I am referring to all the structures that we can't duplicate with our modern technology, either stones are too big to move or cut too precisely to replicate, and all of the figurines, pictographs and carvings in stone of dinosaurs.

Ah, so you are referring to pseudoscience that has been debunked for decades.

Are we to believe that early man with limited reasoning capabilities was able to take the bones of a dinosaur and determine what it looked like?

Is there some special reason beyond your personal incredulity that you find this unlikely? Have you studied paleontology? Do you actually understand the field you seem so eager to dismiss?

Why is it that a mosquito in amber dated millions of years old looks just the same as a modern day mosquito?

Stasis.

Lastly how does one ignore the mathematical impossibility it would take to even have evolution come about?

Fake numbers are pretty easy to ignore by virtue of their not being real.

Next let's talk about heliocentricity vs geocentricity.

Erm. . .seriously?

This is a theory put forth by Copernicus that states the sun is the center of our solar system

Try Aristarchus.

if the earth is rotating at 1000mph, as they say, how is it that I can take a flight from east to west and then return west to east when the average commercial flight flies around 500mph? Why is it that we don't have 1000mph winds on the face of the earth?

Gravity is holding the atmosphere "in place" - which means it is rotating with the earth. Essentially it's the same reason why you can drop a weight from the mast of a moving ship and have it hit the deck instead of splashing into the ocean behind it - the weight is already moving at the same speed as the ship.

Some may say it is because the ozone layer and yet this has a huge hole in it that would only serve to pressurize those winds even further.

No.

Why is it that the water on the face of the earth doesn't fly off due to centrifugal forces?

Gravity.

Can anyone tell me how a fly can land on me and freely exit my gravitational pull when ratio wise my mass vs a fly's mass is probably greater than the earth's mass vs the moon's mass?

Why would you think it shouldn't be able to?

Another little known fact is that when heliocentricity gained the dominant view it was heralded as a victory over the Bible by Galileo.

I see you are now coupling your errors with lies.

This proves that the reason this was presented is because men refuse to believe in God and I'm sure the same can be said for evolution.

Except, of course, for the fact that you are lying. A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with; a desire to be wrong (and/or dishonest) is not.




Lurker

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Please read the following carefully.
What is an assumption?

Something that is accepted as true without proof.

The assumptions of science are:

1. Nature is orderly, it has a pattern, and structure.

2. We can know nature.

3. All phenomena have natural causes.

4. Nothing is self evident. Truth claims must be demonstrated objectively.

5. Knowledge is derived Empirically. Thru senses directly or indirectly.

6. Knowledge is superior to ignorance.

For all these assumptions 1-6, there is no proof, they are held to be true.

Of course they are - by virtue of the fact that science works.

You must believe that the assumptions are true to accept Science.
My problem is with assumptions numbers 3, and 5.

That's probably because you've trended towards a bit of absolutism in your statements. A more accurate way to put it would be:

3. Only natural causes can be verified/falsified.

5. Scientific knowledge is derived empirically.

All phenomena have natural causes.
What an incredible assumption to make.
This is well beyond the scope of thought to assume.

Yet, practically speaking, it works. If we assumed that all phenomena had supernatural causes then we wouldn't actually know much of anything and you would be, I daresay, rather sad, if not rather dead, as a result.

Jesus Christ created the Universe.
Test that one Mr Scientist.

Why?

Note: Jesus Christ is revelation.
The Bible is revelation.
Empiricism is going nowhere.

Buddha is also revelation.
Mohamed is also revelation.
Etc. . .

Claims of revelation don't seem to have gotten us anywhere at all in terms of practical knowledge of how the universe works - empiricism has.

In conclusion, Science is going nowhere,
it never had it in the first place.

A lack of knowledge is something I can help you with; a desire to be wrong is not.




Lurker

 

[s.i.e.]

Lurker -- you have a lot to say about a lot of stuff. That's clear.

But can you not answer such a simple question, re-posted below?


What say you? Or, if nothing, why ignore?

If you are not here to seek Jesus why then are you here Mr.Lurker?

 

[ItinerantLurker]

Lurker -- you have a lot to say about a lot of stuff. That's clear.

But can you not answer such a simple question, re-posted below?


What say you? Or, if nothing, why ignore?

Mostly because I simply enjoy discussing these issues. Why?



Lurker

 

[s.i.e.]

Mostly because I simply enjoy discussing these issues. Why?

Why did I bring it up to you?: because I thought it was relatively rude to have ignored the administrator of these Forums when he asked a fairly simple/direct question to you.

But more importantly to me, I was curious how you might answer it. You seem driven towards something here, and I'm not sure exactly what. Perhaps you don't either. Which is another reason I brought it back up to you - I think it's important to examine why we're driven to ask such questions, what's important in them, what would change in us if we altered our view in certain ways, etc.


Why the question itself, and why was it asked of you?: Ask Chad, I suppose...

 

[David777]

Hello itinerantLurker.

This is the assumption.

All phenomena have natural causes.

It is assumed to be true by Scientists.

I said, this was an assumption that is impossible to make.
It is beyond human ability to know.

Then you replied:

Yet, practically speaking, it works. If we assumed that all phenomena had
supernatural causes then we wouldn't actually know much of anything and
you would be, I daresay, rather sad, if not rather dead, as a result.

i) IL does not know if in fact it does work practically speaking.
IL would need absolute knowledge to form this conclusion.

ii) IL proposes if one assumes supernatural causes then one would know nothing. ???

I did not think you could make headway on this assumption.
It is impossible to know.

 

[ItinerantLurker]

i) IL does not know if in fact it does work practically speaking.
IL would need absolute knowledge to form this conclusion.

You appear to have digressed from reality here - the process of science, which works solely upon testable hypotheses, does in fact work. Our communication, among a myriad of other things, gives testament to this incontrovertible fact.

ii) IL proposes if one assumes supernatural causes then one would know nothing. ???

No, IL proposes that if we assume supernatural causes for phenomena over natural ones we arrive at highly subjective and erroneous conclusions as demonstrated by an astonishing breadth of human history.

This proposition has the advantage of being supported by a long period of utter ignorance about natural phenomena during periods in which supernatural causes were routinely ascribed to phenomena in addition to a continuing trend of increasing understanding of natural phenomena following the systematic application of empiricism.

Again, science works - if its assumptions were wrong why does it produce so many accurate explanations?

What advantage towards increasing our understanding of how this universe works does your proposition bring to the table?




Lurker

 

[David777]

Hello itinerantLurker.

The oldest and perhaps best known problem of Big Bang Theory
is that of the singularity. At the first instant of the Big Bang universe,
in which its density and temperature were infinitely high,
is what is known to mathematicians as a singularity.

Given that the scientists must hold to:
3. All phenomena have natural causes.
This assumption is not negotiable.

Then the singularity has to come into existence from zero time,
zero space. Nothing ItinerantLurker.

What was the natural cause of the singularity?

Answer in 10 lines or less, thanks.

 

[MatthewFive]

Sometimes the curse of great knowledge is often indecision

 

[BCRE8TVE]

i would like to point out also natural selection disproves itself by its own definition. if a pre bird creature without wings grew a stub this stub would help it to survive or make it more appealing to a mate? no. however it takes "millions and millions" of years to "evolve" acording to the man of the hour, darwin. thus it would take a long time to grow from stub to wing to recieve the benifit of flight. however natural selection says it this "evolution" or as i would rather call it a freak mutation would in fact not help it to survive. it would be a hinderance. even more where has man recorded any evidence of this???? we have been around long enough man would just know if evolution happened. it dont. no records. not one sighting.

It's a good thing that's not what either evolution says or what we find in fossil records. What evolution does postulate is that natural selection will force a species to adapt and specialize, modifying and 'upgrading' limbs/organs/features that are already present, and/or to favour mutations that produce a favourable change. What that means, and what we actually do find in the fossil records, are fish whose fins slowly develop to be stronger, growing bones enabling them to come out of water, thus forming amphibians. Amphibians wandered further and further away from water, and developed scales. These reptiles developed feathers from modified scales either as insulation or to produce bright feathers to attract mates. From then, some reptiles who climbed trees grew longer and longer feathers, enabling them to glide down from trees, and to spring faster when on the ground. These feathered reptiles slowly specialized until powered flight was possible. All of this (except for the original purpose of feathers, we are still unsure about that) is supported by the fossil record.

and another thing, look in to this, openmindedly. scientists have tried to re-create life in random experiments by using every method of theory they have for how life started from primeordial soup or big bangs and what is the result of every single controled experiment? that it causes more problems for these theories that are taught to children today in text books as matter in factly truth. and not once have they been able to replicate or create life. however they dont talk about this to much.

Abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. Whether God put the first cell on earth, or aliens came to visit earth and sneezed on it, or if the first cells arose by abiogenesis has absolutely zero affect on evolution.
As for whether abiogenesis is actually impossible, the only thing they NEED to do is to be able to create a self-replicating molecule, with random errors in the replication process of course, and then the rest, as they say, is history. So far, they managed to make a protein that's something like 100 amino acids long, that when two of them bind, they can replicate a third one.
To address most of your questions, I suggest reading on talk-origins . net
talkorigins . org / faqs / abioprob / abioprob . h t m l

the truth is scientists dont like to have carbon dating disproven when they already came out publicly and said it is highly acurate. afterall they are supposed to be the brightest minds in the world today. and what if they are found out to be fools with only thories and no facts? perhaps the government will cut those checks to fund all thier expensive research.

Except of course radiocarbon dating has yet to be proven wrong. There are very precise methods to use radiocarbon dating. We know for example it doesn't work with sea creatures, as the carbon cycle is different in the ocean than on the surface.
As for facts, a fact is something you find. In science, there are billions upon billions of facts, it's the cheapest thing you can find. However, a fact all on its own explains nothing. Virus exists. Fact. There are viruses in a patient's blood. Fact. The patient becomes sick. Fact. After the patient gets better, there are no more viruses in his blood. Fact. Then what? To explain stuff, you need mechanisms, hypotheses, theories, experiences. THAT is science, explaining the how's of facts.

the truth is science is what is proven. not what someones theory is that cannot and/or hasnt been proven. science today seems to be more about thories than fact. a good example of this would be foriensic science. go break the law and see if you can lie your way out now a days. not gonna happen. those guys prove stuff.

Actually, science can never be proven. Any day, we might find data that would throw the theory of gravity in the trash bin. It's highly unlikely, but it might happen. What science does is say 'Look, it's impossible to know for 100% sure, but we're 95% sure this is the right answer, and it works.'
Funny you mention forensic sciences as though it were somehow different from pure sciences, life sciences or social sciences. And they don't 'prove' anything. They make an analysis on different things, like blood, saliva, etc, to determine, using genetics and genomics, two other fields who support evolution, to find out who'se blood it was.




David777
I'm sorry, maybe I used the wrong word. By revelation I did not mean a vision from a superior power(ie deities), more like a revelation someone has while in a dream, an idea which pops out of nowhere and turns out to be true.

 

[BCRE8TVE]

BCRE8TVE said,

The ancient Greeks used their logic to determine many things. One Greek hilosopher (I forgot the name) said that matter was made of indivisible particles. Sounds a lot like atoms, doesn't it?

BCRE8TVE I do not know your scientific background.

Hence, I will tread lightly in answering your statement.

I think it was a fellow named Democritus, in > 300BC.

Be careful here or you will err.

Matter has atomic structure, are atoms the smallest, indivisible constitutes of matter? Certainly not, Science has already introduced quarks, i think the idea was introduced in the 1960's.

You are somewhat behind in your understanding BCRE8TVE.

I am waiting for Science to discover the dark matter and dark energy
which no doubt will exist beneath the quarks, ha, ha, who knows?

Science is a never ending story, an attempt to discover the PHYSICAL Universe.

Science is empiricism, intuition, reasoning and revelation. Regardless of the assumptions BCRE8TVE. Science is an idea, it seemed a good idea at the time. Will it reveal God, no it will not.

My scientific background is that I am studying in my second year in biochemistry, and have done volunteer work in a lab studying transgenic rice.

As for atoms, science had thought they had found the smallest indivisible particle and called it 'atom', which I think means something akin to indivisible. They were pretty amazed to find out it wasn't true. And that opened up a whole other field of study. A perfect example of what I meant by science whose theories are always open to question, and those questions lead to further answers.

Also, science is not an idea, it's a method to discover answers. As for finding God, if God were to be falsifiable, probably not. However, as theists push God further and further into the 'unknowable' category, we'll never know for sure.