Z: 

Great.  I love how you ignorantly lump heliocentric theory into a unified whole and pretend that the Catholic Church condemned it as we know it today. 

You can pick on the imaginary band of “fools” who held onto Ptolemy’s classical geocentric model, but don’t forget the “fools” who also followed “science” with Copernicus…whose model was later proven less accurate than Ptolemy’s was. 

Oh, and here’s some evidence from the scientific community to support my statement:

“Copernicus’s insistence that heavenly bodies should only move in uniform circles lead him to reject Ptolemy’s essentially correct equant scheme, and to instead replace it with spurious additional epicycles. Consequently, Copernicus’s model of the solar system contains far more epicycles than Ptolemy’s. Indeed, the model of Copernicus is more complicated, and less accurate, than that of the Almagest.”
Dr. Richard Fitzpatrick, Prof. Physics, U. of Texas. (2008)

Perhaps those idiots who thought the sun revolved around the earth weren’t so foolish for failing to submit to Copernicus and Galileo as you believe they should have. 

Notice that I gave support for an assertion from an actual scientist.  I’d love to see such an example from you rather than your references to the “scientific community” you imagine to exist.

You are the “lying, mistaken and crazy” one.  YOU HAVE NO PROOF FOR ANYTHING YOU SAY FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  GIVE IT UP.

Zilch: thank you for your nice comments and it is nice to chat with you as well. I appreciate a lot of the posters here. I am Catholic by the way, not Protestant. But as to your question, from what I understand the Venerable Bede translated much of the Old Testament and the Gospel of John into the Anglo-Saxon language before he died, and Alfred the Great had some parts of the Bible translated as well. And there were apparently various Bible scholars in England who translated parts of the Bible into the English language. So, as I said, the Catholic Church in the Middle Ages did not forbid translations of the Bible into vernacular, even if this was rare and perhaps discouraged. Wycliffe’s was significant, however, as he was the first person to translate the entire Bible into English.

As for William’s comments; I do not think that Atheists are “miserable.” At least no more than any other group.

I want some of that you’re smoking.

I said nothing about the catholic church’s condemnation of heliocentric theory.

I said that people who said that the sun orbited the earth were wrong.  Unless you’re telling me that it does?

Simply wanted me to tell you that so many people seeing god were lying or wrong. 

I did.

Michael: Surely someone who has studied the Scriptures as much as you claim to have done can help me better understand exactly which God we are talking about, when you refer to God. Would that be the God of Abraham, or YHWH, of the southern tribes of Israel, or his earlier predecessor, El , worshiped by the northern tribes. YHWH was said to have written the Ten Commandments, so you probably mean that God, the one that Abram brought with him out of Ur and called him the “God of my fathers.” Please clarify as to which God you refer, and if not one of these two, which God do you mean? And, for your information, I have not only read the Bible, including the New Testament,  several times, I taught the Bible for twenty years. Awaiting your reply.

LEGURU:

If there is one thing I know, it’s the Scriptures and I’m happy to say that they answer you easy question.  When Moses is given God’s neam, he is told:

“I am YHWH.  I appeared to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name YHWH I did not make myself known to them.” (Ex. 6:3)

You assume that because God is called by a name at one point in time and by another later that there must be two separate gods?  How do you justify that leap?  Anyway’s it’s explained in black and white in the passage I quoted.  It’s merely a different name.  Names represent characteristics in ancient culture, so it only makes sense that the one true God would be called by a different name in different circumstances…it’s merely an identification of various aspects of His person.  For example:

“Once when Jacob was cooking a stew, Esau came in from the field, and he was famished. Esau said to Jacob, “Let me eat some of that red stuff, for I am famished!” (Therefore he was called Edom.)”

Esau and Edom were the same person, but called different names according to different attributes.

In your 20 years of teaching, did you teach that everyone who read the Bible before 1900 never realized that God was referred to by different names?  This is basic Catholic Bible knowledge, explained in the Catholic Encyclopedia:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10675a.htm

So, when I say God…I mean God: who is called El, YHWH, Adonai, El-Elyon, Shaddai and a hundred other names according to His attributes.

Was that so hard? 

Speaking of names, my name is William, not Michael.

Sorry, William: Actually, God did not give Moses his name, because according to the belief of that time, if you knew the true name of a god he would become your servant. YHWH was worshipped from circa 1200 BC to present date and El was worshipped from circa 2500 BC to 700 BC. (see Encyclopedia of Gods, by Michael Jordan) YHWH was the Sumerian god that Abram brought with him to help in wars. He was small enough to fit in the Arc of the Covenant. The reason he was called, “God of my fathers” was that Abram’s family had adopted that god. (see The Hiram Key by Knight and Lomas) Thank you for your clarification.

Thanks, Positive.  I don’t know why I thought you were a Protestant- usually I can tell after one sentence or so.

The Venerable Bede is well-known to musicologists for having written about medieval musical practice, and I knew he had written Biblical commentaries, but I didn’t know he had translated any of the Bible.  Unfortunately, none of his translations seem to have survived.

William: about atheists being “miserable”- this is a claim commonly made by Christians.  I debated this once at length with a bunch of Calvinists at Triablogue, who said that if atheists were to live in a logically consistent way, they would all commit suicide.  Anyone with a lot of time on their hands, who wants to see some truly bizarre twists of reasoning, can check it out here, then here, and finally here.  Warning: mind-numbing sophistry.  Don’t say I didn’t warn you.

So, if Jesus was allowed to change the way the Old Testament worked on his say so, it’s obvious that Mohammad changed it further right? Then, later on, Joesph Smith also changed it with his prophesies? Or maybe it’s Jim Jones or David Koresh who got in the last revisions?

Religion is a joke. It’s just politics with supernatural, superstitious blackmail added to the mix: Do this or fairies will be mean to you. Eat this cracker, because the magical pink unicorn says so.

“But it teaches morality!”

Really? So do Aesop’s fables, and Aesop told a better story.

“Religion is a joke. It’s just politics with supernatural, superstitious blackmail added to the mix: Do this or fairies will be mean to you. Eat this cracker, because the magical pink unicorn says so.”

Well said!

Mr. Michael - in response to your question:

You assume that every claim made throughout world history that any person saw a divine being or heard a divine voice is a lie. Not some or a few, but ALL.  For you to be right, every such claim must have been a lie or an error.

If only one of them is true, then your entire belief system is false.

FOR ONCE AND FOR ALL, EXPLAIN TO ME ON WHAT EVIDENCE OR LOGICAL GROUND YOU DENY THEIR CLAIMS. 

My “logical” ground is this:

Given that I am inherently skeptical, I prefer to have “scientific” proof that something is true - that is to say that I don’t except “eye witness acounts” over that which I can test and/or confirm for myself.

Many people have claimed to see little grey aliens with big eyes. Many more have claimed to see the Loch Ness Monster. On the basis of your argument I should take this as proof that these aliens and monsters exist - and so should you.

However, there have been numerous scientific studies of Loch Ness - and no monster, or evidence of the monster have been found. I prefer to accept the science which I could replicate myself.

Is that acceptable to you?

Where do you stand on aliens and the loch ness monster?

So, ignoring the fact that you were wrong about PLiny’s never referring to Christ,

IT ISN’T A FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT.  WHICH PART OF THAT DO YOU NOT FUCKING UNDERSTAND?  Pliny is NOT talking about events (the Gospels) that he has experienced personally.  He is talking about a bunch of people and their beliefs.  If I tell you I have a Pink Unicorn in my bedroom, you telling someone else of my claim is NOT proof of a pink unicorn. “They are Christians, they follow Christ” is NOT writing about Christ.  The fact that you torture English to try and get it to mean something that was plainly never intended is shown by this what I can only call bizarre passage.

You can pick on the imaginary band of “fools” who held onto Ptolemy’s classical geocentric model, but don’t forget the “fools” who also followed “science” with Copernicus…whose model was later proven less accurate than Ptolemy’s was. 
Oh, and here’s some evidence from the scientific community to support my statement:
“Copernicus’s insistence that heavenly bodies should only move in uniform circles lead him to reject Ptolemy’s essentially correct equant scheme, and to instead replace it with spurious additional epicycles. Consequently, Copernicus’s model of the solar system contains far more epicycles than Ptolemy’s. Indeed, the model of Copernicus is more complicated, and less accurate, than that of the Almagest.“
Dr. Richard Fitzpatrick, Prof. Physics, U. of Texas. (2008)
Perhaps those idiots who thought the sun revolved around the earth weren’t so foolish for failing to submit to Copernicus and Galileo as you believe they should have. 

I have read and reread this.  I even checked who proposed what, as I though I must be misunderstanding you, and confused myself as to the Copernican model.  I then looked at the paper that Dr Fitzpatrick was quoting (his own).

The paper is 172 pages long, and will require close reading, but your assertion appears to be this shows Copernicus was wrong.  The thrust of the paper is not to disprove a heliocentric system, but to argue that the mechanics of Ptolemy, if applied to a heliocentric system, gives a better model.  This assertion

You can pick on the imaginary band of “fools” who held onto Ptolemy’s classical geocentric model, but don’t forget the “fools” who also followed “science” with Copernicus…whose model was later proven less accurate than Ptolemy’s was. 

make you appear to defend Geocentricity.  I am going to assume you do not believe the Sun moves round the Earth- frankly if you do then it is not worth anyone here replying to any of your comments ever again. 

Copernicus was essentially correct with heliocentricity.  The problems with the Copernican model is his insistence of circular orbits.  Kepler (one of those “fools” who also followed “science” with Copernicus) corrected the model using observations made by Tycho Brahe, by making the orbits elliptical.

Of course, the Catholic Church famously denied Copernicus’ heliocentricity.  Though there are modern revisionists who try to claim otherwise the Vatican suppressed the Sun-centred model

Decree of the Index (5 March 1616)
  Decree of the Holy Congregation of the Most Illustrious Lord Cardinals especially charged by his Holiness Pope Paul V and by the Holy Apostolistic See with the Index of books and their licensing, prohibition, correction, and printing in all of Christendom.  To be published everywhere….
[list of other banned books]
This Holy Congregation has also learned about the spreading and acceptance by many of the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether contrary to the Holy Scripture, that the earth moves and the sun is motionless, which is also taught by Nicholaus Copernicus’s On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres and by Diego de Zuniga’s On Job. This may be seen from a certain letter published by a certain Carmelite Father, whose title is Letter of the Reverend Father Paolo Foscarini, on the Pythagorean and Copernican Opinion of the Earth’s Motion and Sun’s Rest and on the New Pythagorean World System (in which the said Father tries to show that the above-mentioned doctrine of the sun’s rest at the center of the world and the earth’s motion is consonant with the truth and does not contradict Holy Scripture.  Therefore, in order that this opinion may not creep any further to the prejudice of Catholic truth, the Congregation has decided that the books by Nicolaus Copernicus (On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres) and Diego de Zuniga (On Job) be suspended until corrected; but that the book of the Carmelite Father Paolo Antonio Foscarini be completely prohibited and condemned; and that all other books which teach the same be likewise prohibited, according to whether with the present decree it prohibits, condemns, and suspends them respectively.  In witness thereof, this decree has been signed by the hand and stamped with the seal of the Most Illustrious and Reverend Lord Cardinal of St. Cecilia, Bishop of Albano, on 5 March 1616.

While apologists are keen to point out that Galileo was place under house arrest, rather than tortured or imprisoned in a medieval dungeon, they ignore the fact of those executed for proposing the same beliefs- Giordano Bruno, a Dominican friar, was burned at the stake for it.  He also suffered the heretic’s fork, Y-shaped object, the branched end of which passed into his jaw while the lower end was positioned behind his breastbone to force his mouth shut.
Now it a co-incidental way this has a parallel with Pliny- Pliny mentions Christ from reported speech to him (i.e. the Christians claims), which you see as proof of the Messiah.  The Pope states the Earth is the Centre of the Universe, and decrees are issued to this effect.  People are told the Earth is the centre.  Does this make the Earth the centre?

You are the “lying, mistaken and crazy” one.  YOU HAVE NO PROOF FOR ANYTHING YOU SAY FROM THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.  GIVE IT UP.

As you are so keen to use a scientific methods I will, for the fourth time, invite you to show some proof.  You are making the assertion the Genesis account of the Flood is accurate. Provide evidence.  Note, it does not fall on me to disprove it- you are the one making the assertion.  It remains with you to back this up.  My evidence (the bit I don’t have to provide) is that the Earth’s geology does not fit with the Biblical story.  The only thing you have offered is “It is possible for God to cover it up”.  It is you, not us, that is being unscientific.  We have lots of proof of all sorts of things.  Go and study evolution properly, or geology, or astronomy, or any of dozens of disciplines where the observations contradict the Bible. 

If you want to play the Science card, then you have to use the Science rules.  Provide Evidence.

Why am I up at 5am typing a measured reply to someone who is going to sneer at me, ignore it and throw his toys out the pram? (damn just realised didn’t answer the bit where he defends other religeons- against the teaching of the Bible and his own Church).

First-hand experience of how the Catholic Church teaches tolerance of other churches: When I was a missionary in Brasil in the early 60’s a lady started to attend church services at our branch. One of the lady missionaries made an appointment to meet her at her house and teach her the lessons. When asked if she would be baptized if she came to believe our church, the lady replied, “Oh, no. I only attended your services because I promised Our Lady I would do so for one year for penance. It is a mortal sin to attend other churches.” SHE WAS DOING PENANCE! By the way, Catholics were expected to have a Bible in the home, but it was a mortal sin to read the Bible.

LH- nice work.  If you or anyone else is interested, the good folks at Rice University have done a great job of presenting the story of geocentric versus heliocentric models of the Solar System here.

William: you say

Perhaps those idiots who thought the sun revolved around the earth weren’t so foolish for failing to submit to Copernicus and Galileo as you believe they should have.

While I can’t get too exercised over the failure of the Catholic Church to embrace heliocentrism right away, because it wasn’t at all obviously true back in the seventeenth century, I can’t condone their use of censure, arrest, torture, and execution against those who believed otherwise, and who (incidentally) were right, or at least on the right path.  And characterizing the Catholic Church’s use of force against scientists as “failing to submit” to them is, well, an apologetic dance of the most bizarre kind.

So, when I say God…I mean God: who is called El, YHWH, Adonai, El-Elyon, Shaddai and a hundred other names according to His attributes.

The dude has an identity crisis and would run into all kinds of trouble trying to get a drivers license.

God faces name-change deadline

Since my popcorn ran out, please allow me a metacomment or two. All y’all should be ashamed of yerselves—Bill the Wanker plays you like a fiddle.

We have never enforced any rules of formal debates on SEB, but since he touted himself as a master debater right in his initial emails with Les, throwing the kitchen sink at him to see what would stick is not the greatest idea.

I could have sworn BtW said something to the effect that he wants to test his and our beliefs in debate, but I can’t be bothered to look for the post. If memory serves right, the former would make him the first one since David in ‘04 to come right out and say it and unless I’m mistaken, the latter makes him the first of his kind.

What you should have done is to ask him to stake out his position and defend it, rather than letting yourselves be led by your noses and reacting to his goading. Yes, I did answer his three questions, but as I said at the time, he’s not worth my time to waste brain bandwidth on and it simply amused me to answer anyway. The other option would have been to ignore the three oh-so-tricky questions and stake out where you come from from a vantage point of your own choosing. It’s called taking the initiative, eh. Oh, and Patness, he got you good—I don’t recall you volunteering that much personal information in all the years you’ve been around here. Not that that’s necessarily a bad thing, unless appearances are not deceiving and he provoked you into it.

Like zilch, I don’t intend to participate in the mud wrestling. Several things come to mind, though. First, BtW whines about being called names, but it’s obvious to the interested reader that BtW himself didn’t waste any time dishing out ad hominem. The interested reader will also note that BtW plays fast and loose with the burden of proof, presents hasty generalizations like sound arguments, and if I bothered to do more than skim his posts, I could point out others. Coming from a self-proclaimed master debater, this simply forces a müdes Arschrunzeln (ask Zilch ) and nothing more.

So, either ask him to state clearly what he believes and why, or ignore his “challenges” and goading and state clearly what you believe (if you want to be mean, leave it at that and walk away).

I for one don’t see BtW bring anything new to the table, therefore I have no interest to (try to) argue with him. I also have no need to “test my beliefs”, but I’d like to point out that like SEB, any registered user can submit posts on my site. If BtW or anybody else wants to have a chat with me, they’re welcome to come on over—just be aware I won’t tolerate the tone that BtW exhibits in this thread.

Elwed, I did ask him, and he has clearly stated belief in Creation and Flood. When challenged for evidence he has said
1) The Bible isn’t a scientific book
2) Agreed God may have covered up the evidence.
In addition his theology is all over the place, in a attempt to justify his beliefs- the whole Pliny thread is a torturous path of ‘some-one mentioned him, therefore he is the messiah’.

Ich werde jedenfalls mit ihm gelangweilt, er hat keine wirklichen Antworten zu irgendwelchen Fragen bekanntgegeben, und sein Verständnis von, wie Wissenschaftsarbeiten beschränkt scheinen. Ich frage mich, ob er ein Protestant ist, der sich bemüht, Katholiken dazu zu bringen, schlecht auszusehen.

2) Agreed God may have covered up the evidence.

Found that quite amusing, makes a person wonder what he/she/its got to hide

DEAR FRIENDS:

Having gone through a hundred posts now and being accused of everything from lying about quotes (which have been verified), contradicting my theology (which is impossible as its Catholic and taken right from the pages of the Catechism), and last of all being unworthy of your time (though much of it has been offered). I’d like to make my LAST ARGUMENT.

The Christian faith is, as you say, foolishness—St. Paul called it that himself.  The ultimate foolishness, however, is found not in the faith of the Christian Church, but in the self-contradiction that is at the root of atheism.

Christianity is proud to say that our beliefs are based on faith and not sight.  Therefore, when we reason from faith, we are consistent.  We may not please the “scientific community” (i.e., naturalists), but we are consistent.

On the other hand, the atheists who use science as their defense pretend to OBJECT to faith-based reasoning.  However, at the very root of atheism are…not proven facts…but asumptions that are received by the same type of FAITH that Christians receive their with.

What are these assumptions?  You can read them in many of the posts that have been made against me:

1.  There is no God.
2.  Nothing can be created from nothing.
3.  All measurable effects must have measurable causes.

None of these can be proven by means of scientific observation.  They are assumptions that are reasoned FROM not conclusions that are the product of reason. 

The problem here is that, unlike Christianity, you claim to OBJECT to faith-based assumptions, but that is precisely what these are.  Thus, your belief system has this fatal flaw:  it is SELF-CONTRADICTORY in its own principles.  Again, your philosophy s self-contradictory.

I agree 100% that Christianity can prove none of these statements scientifically…but we don’t claim that we should be able to.  It is your camp that mocks our faith, yet you start in the same way.  Once your assumptions are received by faith, as well as many other scientific assumptions based on isolated observations, yet unjustly applied universally, all of your scientific “conclusions” flow quite freely.  However, your assumptions are not granted. 

Therefore, while being unable to supply the kind natural, physical evidence you irrationally demand to prove the existence of spiritual, immaterial beings, yet I hold fast to my first principle that truth is obtained by faith before all else…and my system remains consistent. 

You must pretend an objectivity based on evidence that does not exist and is ultimately impossible.  Therefore, I say your system fails due to this fundmental self-contradiction.

I have enjoyed the opportunity and have learned alot about your methods and arguments. However, in the end, I’m persuaded that without self-contradiction, atheism cannot hold water.

God bless,
Bill Michael

Blah blah blah. Confronted with his tactics he declares victory and scurries back into the woodwork. Typical True Believer™.

Oooh, LH talks dirty, I mean German

I see little evidence that BtW is more than a troll—unless he’s a megalomaniac of sort and he just ain’t as smart as he purports. Whatever.

One thing I learned about Catholics in Catholic forums is that their beliefs are all over place (and never mind what they are supposed to believe if you ask the Church’s senior management), which is offset by a few compulsive-obsessive types who have nothing better to do than to study the Catechism all day long. He’s not necessarily an agent provocateur for the Protestants, but again: whatever. It is as you say, he’s boring and the one thing he’s obviously not interested in is a serious debate. He’ll walk away here proclaiming himself the winner no matter what—we’ve seen this before time and time again.

Anyway, back to playing Urban Dead. There are bra!nz to snack on and rotters to revive.

He’ll walk away here proclaiming himself the winner no matter what—we’ve seen this before time and time again.

ROTFLMAO—he did it while I was editing my previous post

Always assuming he’ll actually quit. It usually takes two or three grandstanding swan songs before they pack up and go for good.

1. What is the purpose of human life? 
  2. What makes a day or event greater than any other? 
  3. What is the starting principle from which you define human rights?

A1) Who says there has to be an answer.
Since long time past humans have sought to find reasons why things happen, in yee olden times this frequently resulted in peeps ascribing bad events to evil spirits, demons, witches Etc.

However things change and many people have now consigned these kind of beliefs to the dustbin of history, as ever though there are always others who cling to their beliefs no matter what evidence is presented to them, such as the Flat Earth Society.

A2) If people want to celebrate a holiday of their choosing that’s up to them, just as long as they remember to phone in to their work so someone can man the phones. Of course if they are the person that answers the phone then that could pose a bit of a problem
Kudos to all those peeps who are out there in all weathers ensuring the safety of others.

A3) Human rights are a means by which societies have determined a way of ensuring that its citizens can co-exist to a reasonable degree.

Peace out ... live and let live.

I think it’s pretty impressive that William has turned to you for answers, but if I were you, I would try to keep the answers simple, because he apparently can’t tell the difference between stating the obvious vs. criticism.
Meanwhile I’d like to offer MY answer to all three questions.
We all know right from wrong, not because we’re taught, but because we feel. Wrong leaves us feeling fearful, dishonest, and selfish, which in turn leads us to resentment.
“Demonstrable Reasoning” :
Try asking someone for money then telling them who they can or can’t fuck. Try backing that up with fearless, honest, or generous reasoning. Then pay careful attention to the resentment that follows and ask yourself who’s responsible.

Willy.

You lost

Repeatedly.

Big time.

You do not recognise it, however you did not make one good coherent arguement.  You made the only arguement the credulous can make.  “I can’t prove it, but I don’t have to because faith is better then proof”.  You are too narrow minded to even understand while that is a completely stupid arguement.

Apparently this is catechism- 

When I say I would not doubt the truth of their religious texts, I mean that if Muhammad, or Buddha claimed to hear this or see that, I would not doubt that they may have

.  So if the Sikh texts claim sight of Vishnu then you would happily agree Vishnu exists [whine] but I said I would disagree with conclusions[/whine] .  Yes that’s because you are incredibly narrow minded- only your conclusion of the evidence ‘can be right’. 

You are not a complete fuckwit though, for you knew better than to answer my questions directly.  I ask about Sikh and Hindu, and you reference Islam (another Judaic splinter cult, like Christianity, so not disagreeing with your basic world set up, and having Jesus as a prophet) and Buddism (of the 6 main religions one that is startling different in its belief systems, so there is no direct competition with mono-theistic cults).

Now, why don’t you try showing us how Shiva or Ganesh do not exist, or why that holy book is less valid than yours?  Every quote you give their scholars will be able to answer with one of theirs.

Even when you make it up you can’t keep it consistent.

Judges 1:19
And the LORD was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Mathew 19:26
With God all things are possible

Luke 2:14
Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

John 14:27
Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

John 16:33
These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.

Acts 10:36
The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Luke 12:51
Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Luke 22:36
He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.

But this is pointless.  You will continue to ignore anything that you do not agree with, and carrying on wittering that the Flood happened (even though there is no evidence), or there are no contradictions in the Bible.  (I will give you the one about the relaxation of pork bans- I’ve found the passages where Jesus allows it, thus changing the law)

Please get it into your head.  You are making the claim, therefore you have to prove it. Maybe thats why you don’t like science.