ROFLMAO

Once again we have a post that confuses science with philosophical or superstitious beliefs. Science deals with that which is physical and measureable while philosophy deals with speculation about that which is not physical or measurable.

First let me address the "BIG PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTIONS" put forward from a scientific perspective.

Why the fuck are we here? Evolution and natural selection.

Why the fuck do we die? Our bodies stop functioning.

What the goddamn fuck happens after that? Tyically we are buried and decompose enriching the soil.

I know, some people are so insecure that they can't handle the truth but there is no physical or measurable evidence to support any other conclusions.

We see the typical ignorance of a layman as it relates to science when it comes to addressing the theoretical propositions put forward by physicists. It's the old "theory is nothing but a belief" argument which is grossly untrue from the standpoint of scientific methodology.

Before a theory can be proposed all physical and measureable evidence must be considered. Based upon the physical and measureable evidence a hypothesis is proposed. That hypothesis is then tested and if it is not contradicted then and only then it becomes a theory. If a hypothesis is contradicted then it is back to square one because new evidence has been revealed to change the basis for the hypothesis.

Yes, theoretical physicists deal in the unknown but their theories originate with what is known and cannot contradict what is known. Yes, a physicist uses logical deduction expressed in mathmatical expressions (math is based solely upon logical deduction) to support their theory because they are addressing the unknown.

It is somewhat ironic that when someone like Stephen Hawkin proposes a theory then every other physicist sets out to either prove or disprove the theory. All a physicist needs in a single example of a theory not being true to destroy the theory. To disprove the theory all that needs to is to shown is that the logical deduction (mathmatical expression) is in error. With people of Stephen Hawkin's level this is extremely hard to do.

In physics you can have multiple theories that contradict each other and we often see that. This is based upon the scientific tenet that "if something can neither be proven or disproven it can be assumed to be true." That does not make the theory true because that can only come with physical or measureable evidence but it can be assumed to be true. If you can prove a theory then it is no longer a theory but becomes a scientific fact. For example, we used to have a theory that Black Holes existed based upon logical deduction. Since then we have been able to prove they exist by measuring the speed of orbiting stars around them. Black holes are no longer a theory but are a scientific fact. Even though we can't see them we can measure their effects and the effects are exactly as predicted by the original theory.

Of course many theories are disproven over time. At one point we had a theory that the sun rotated around the earth but that was disproven.

When you deal with logical deduction as expressed in mathmatical notation it is a beautiful thing. It opens up all that is possible and based upon what is possible you can explore and eventually find the truth. No all that is possible based upon logical deduction is necessarily the truth but it remains a possibility until proven otherwise.

But science is not a belief. Science is the methodology of logical deduction which takes that which is known to explore the unknown.