/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2001539]

So /sci/, i have a question.
Most of you don't believe in god (me neither and i hate christfags) and if questioned why a response commonly given is "Because we can't see him or prove that he's real". Fair enough.
On the other hand, if someone asks you if the atom exists you would of course reply with certainity "Well, of course you retard!". Here's the problem though: we haven't seen the atom either.
So we can't see god - we can't see atom, yet we accept that the atom exists while denying god's existence. My question is clearly ethological and sociological. Why do people believe in science more than anything? Is it really that impossible the theories about the atom are just WRONG? Could it be that science is gaining more power over society and people than it should?
Hit me with mathematical proof that the atom exists or any aspect about it. I'm really interested to know what you guys think.

[снайпер No.2001549]

>we can't see atoms

Well, you're wrong.

[Anonymous No.2001558]

>>2001549

[Anonymous No.2001565]

>>2001549

Delicious silicon crystal.
Have some benzene.

[Anonymous No.2001569]

I think science has a pretty decent track record of predicting something we can't see then experimentally verifying or observing it later. "How do we know xxx in science isn't wrong if we can't observe it with our limited hunter gathered based senses?!" is stupid shit and I am tired of hearing it.

[Anonymous No.2001579]

>we haven't seen the atom
>derp

[Anonymous No.2001580]

God damnit you asshole. The theory of the atom is proven by chemistry experiments. Hypotheses of the amount of electrons/protons are proven correct by experiments. Read a fucking book. You can even do the math yourself, it's easy.

[снайпер No.2001584]

Here's an animated gif of a rubidium atom being pushed by a laser.

[Anonymous No.2001586]

Here's the thing you are missing. That's not the answer many rational people would give as to why they don't believe in god.

Here's my answer. I was not born knowing anything about god. God, as a theory to explain existence, was introduced to me. If you introduce a new theory to me, you must convince me of it. God, as a concept, does not explain much, and tries to explain some things that are much more easily explained by observable phenomena. God's not the simplest solution, and the simplest solution is usually correct.
God, as couched in the terms of any specific religion, conflicts with observable data.

Nobody has given sufficient reason for me to accept the god theory, so I haven't.

The theory that there are atoms explain quite a bit of observable phenomena, there have been no more elegant theories to explain these things, and the theory does not conflict with any data that I'm aware of. Therefore, the theory of atoms are useful and acceptable. If new data came to my attention, for which the theory of atoms sucked and other theories better explained, my belief about atoms could change.

[Anonymous No.2001588]

>>2001565
>Have some benzene
>implying that is not pentacene

[Anonymous No.2001590]

>>2001565
"How do you guys remain friends when you are so different?"

"I don't know. How does carbon come together to form a benzene ring? Proximity and valence electrons...."

[Anonymous No.2001598]

Many theories about atoms HAVE been proven wrong. The very word 'atom' means 'indivisible' (from the greek), which we now know they are not.

We trust science because science is based on observation and deductive reasoning. If it wasn't, it wouldn't be science. Things get more complicated when we translate that trust to those who speak in the name of science, and try to apply the influence of Science to their own ideas.

[Anonymous No.2001604]

>>2001539
You must be from Mississippi to have never heard of an electron microscope. They are powerful enough to see even the collection of 3 neurons you call a brain.

[Anonymous No.2001621]

will one be ignorant if he says "i don't believe the atom exists because nobody has proven its existence to me"?

[Anonymous No.2001644]

>>2001598
>Many theories about atoms HAVE been proven wrong.

They are not wrong so much as incomplete. The key is that the theories successfully predict what is then verified.

The theories are later replaced when we discover that it's not as accurate as we require and there's more to it than originally understood.

Until that happens, they are as accurate as they can be.

And it will happen. We expect it to because we know our limitations, and we intend to stretch them.

[Anonymous No.2001700]

>>2001621
"I don't believe in brains because I have never initiated tactile involvement"