The evidence is unnecessary

Nah,...
A hypothesis has no evidence in its support.
The idea is suggested as a possibility.
Then, once evidence is discovered, the hypothesis becomes a Theory.

 

The Truth has made it possible for people to get arms and legs as science has developed such equipment.


John 14: 13 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, (ie.; Truth), that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son.

 

Not really. A theory can be a collection of hypotheses covering a larger area.

There can be massive evidence and no refutation for a hypothesis, but still not be considered a theory. For example, it might simply not be significant enough.

The edges aren't as sharp as you seem to think.

 

Actually, you are both wrong. A THEORY is no more than an opinion (even if it's a scientific theory). A theory requires no evidence, though theories are often accompanied by 'evidence', in the hope that it will be given more credence. The crux of this is that any theory is VALID UNTIL IT IS DISPROVED. Which is why 'gravity' is still considered a theory, and why Einstein's THEORY of relativity is still a theory.

 

Well there are no edges in modern science though.
A hypothesis is exactly what I said it is.
And a theory is a proven hypothesis.

 

No.
His employees knew he was searching for a filament which would not just glow for a few seconds and die out.
They did not believe his hypothesis that something would last for months or even a year.
Edison tried 3000 different things before the carbon filament worked.

 

Wrong on that one, too.
Social Scientist have developed the patterns which are behind the rise and subsequent fall of dominant empires and/or Nations.
The general idea is sketched out by this report below:


THE FATE OF EMPIRES and SEARCH FOR SURVIVAL
Sociologist: Sir John Glubb
The seven stages of the rise and fall of great nations seem to be:

1) The Age of Pioneers (outburst)
2) The Age of Conquests
3) The Age of Commerce
4) The Age of Affluence
5) The Age of Intellect
6) The Age of Decadence.
7) The Age of Revolts or invasion.

Decadence is marked by: I] Defensiveness, II] Pessimism, III] Materialism, IV] Frivolity, (Sexual promiscuity) V] An influx of foreigners, VI] The Welfare State, (to support the bastard kids), VII] A weakening of religion.

http://www.newworldeconomics.com/archives/2014/092814_files/TheFateofEmpiresbySirJohnGlubb.pdf


This compare very well with the seven headed beast and the 10 kingdoms which rise up and then fall.

 

Science has only disproof - proof of falsity.

Absolutely nothing in science has been proven true in any real sense of the term.

One result of that is that if you are waiting for proof of something (such as climate change, or whatever), you're making a big mistake, because there will never be proof.

 

?
Science establishes Facts.

Facts are things which our senses can observe.
Facts are things PROVEN to happen, because we "see" them experimentally.

 

John Glubb was a soldier and engineer. He was not a sociologist by training. His hypothesis is NOT gospel, its merely yet another hypothesis.

That is not science proving the hypothesis of faith in any way. I suppose one can compare it to "the 7 headed beast" and the 10 kingdoms, but that would require a number of leaps of logic and "interpretation", IOW, it first requires faith in the veracity of the bible and THEN the attempt to "fit" that interpretation into a preconceived conclusion.

 

But the science was with him. He had the physics of electricity and its generation and transmission for instance. His dedication in the face of skepticism is nothing new to human nature.

 

I like this.

The desire to root out all spirituality seems strange to me, but no stranger than trying limit it through religion. Religion still interest me because of its potential to motivate people, but in most cases where it is extremely effective it has lead to bad final outcomes. People seem to be most effective and benign when motivated partly from religious belief and partly from secular humanitarianism.

BTW. Your not alone.

 

must be great to be able to make a claim and believe in something extraordinary and fantastical, AND be able to also say "I need to evidence to prove it exists".

Im jealous

 

You begin by assuming that atheism is false and that anyone who is atheist does so because of psychological problems. These would need to be argued for before the questions you ask even arise.