I might be wrong here, but as I understand it, a valid scientific theory is one that can be falsified, meaning that although it may be impossible to prove the theory is correct, there has to be a way to prove it wrong, using evidence.

So scientific types throw out "theories" like "creation" because they say there is no way to prove it, or actually to falsify it. Or have they thought they've falsified it?

I wonder if you say that God exists, you have a theory that God exists let's say. Maybe you can't "prove" it. Nor can you falsify it, can you? Provide evidence that demonstrates that God actually does not exist?

What if your theory is that God does not exist. Can you "prove" it? Can you falsify it? Are there tests you can run that will show you that in fact God does exist, proving your theory wrong?

I don't think so... neither way can be proven, neither can be falsified. (Unless you are a believing person and sees proof of God's existence, or falsifiable evidence to the contrary in everything, everywhere, all the time.) But that being the case, neither theory is more valid than the other. Selecting one is entirely a matter of choice, not scientific proof.

Either decision is based on faith. Positive faith (that God exists) or negative faith (otherwise.) So when atheists say they don't want to have "blind faith" in some religion, or in God... they still have blind faith, don't they? Because their theory is no more valid than that of a religious person.

I had this thought tonight. It could have holes in it. Just thought I'd throw it out there for examination, though.

I think the key is the emotional need that leads to belief. For example it has always seemed strange to me that some atheists get angry when debating. From a standpoint of non belief there is nothing to defend and therefore be offended by. So why do some Atheists get emotional about their unbelief? Do they need for there not to be a God?

Hello Folks.....long time.

God isn't a theory in my opinion. It's 100% blind faith. If I said to you a frog is running the universe, when asked to prove it, I would say the frog is outside the universe and therefore cannot be proven, this frogs favourite colours are blue and green, which is why Earth is blue and green, I 100% believe this to be the case.

This holds just as much weight as any other theory outside the the bounds of the universe.

If you notice the universe, it
it's like a big folder in Windows, there are electrons and atoms which group to make cells, which group to make molecules, which group to make tiny bacterial creatures to the largest mammalians, whch live on a planet, in a star system, which is part of a galaxy, which is part of a group of billions of other galaxies which are part of the universe, which is part of..........a billion other universes, which are part of a single electron in some animal lol....ok I made up the last two things, but really...life is a mystery and we all have no idea.

Thanks for correcting me, about the attempt to explain some observable phenomena.

By the same standard, would it be fair (and I'm asking because maybe the negation would make them weak) to say that there could be a theory "life developed on earth without the help of God" or "God did not create the universe"?

Wouldn't they be subject to the same scrutiny as the two you suggested, because they cannot be empirically tested and verified?

That is reverse engineering.