Capitalism

[Nobunaga]

... Great thread, Snorri. Well done.

... Communism has failed everywhere it's appeared. Don't push China back at me because China's recent success is based entirely on its acceptance of capitalism as its "money engine". Communist in most social respects, very capitalist economically.

... Socialism, on the other hand, works well in Japan. They do not call themselves socialist and probably don't see themselves as such, but it is a cradle-to-grave nanny-state. I think what works for them is their need to succeed, on their own merit. It's a national trait. Failure is not acceptable, yet, should you fail there is a massive social structure in place to support you.

...

[thegreekdog]

I have a follow-up question Snorri - what exactly are you arguing? What is your position? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that absolute capitalism doesn't work. I don't think anyone can really win an argument by saying "absolute capitalism" does work.

Likewise, you believe that incompetent rich bastards won't achieve a position of power?

Incompetent rich bastards and capitalism don't mix. In a truly capitalist society, everyone starts at 0. There are no Paris Hiltons or Donald Trump, Jrs. Mr. and Mrs. Hilton and Trump Sr. wouldn't give their kids money. They would throw their kids out of the house at age 15 and make them get jobs. Similarly, when Trump Sr. dies, his money wouldn't be given to Trump Jr. (that is generally referred to as hereditary rule). In a truly capitalist society, we wouldn't have estates being passed from generation to generation. Instead, children of the rich would be forced to make money on their own... so, if they were incompetent they would fail.

[captain.crazy]

Slavery was wrong. Blacks are people too and should have been considered when the declaration of Independence said that all men were created equal and were free to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was a justified application of the federal governments authority. Notice, though, how it did not grow the government or add to its power?

Thats the point, it was obviously the correct solution yet tens of thousands died because they did not agree, who decides what is best for all ? Should the schools in bible belt states be able to teach Creationism as Science and dismiss Evolution as an Atheist inspired fraud, because they would if they had the chance. The United States is one country and the states need to be bound together with Federal administration, tax and other things can be tweaked at local level but central government must drive the economy as a whole.
It is actually laughable that you guys are always complaining about how downtrodden you are and how you have no freedom wheras in fact you are incredibly lucky to have been born where you were, go live in a Sub Saharan village for a year and then you might get some perspective.[/quote]

Several poor points that you make here...

1. It was over six hundred thousand lives lost in the civil war, and really, the American Government could have saved all of those lives and a ton of money if they would have made the law and simply bought the slaves freedom.

2. Parents should be responsible for the education of their children. If they want to believe in Creationism, that is their right. As it is now, Americans can't even get it recognized as a theory in the public arena. This is why private and home schools are so commonplace in America.

finally,

3. No one is complaining about our lack of rights, only the relentless attempts of the Republicrat political party to strip those rights and liberties away.

Anyway, thanks for your points, please consider thinking about the liberties of the individual before you respond.

[captain.crazy]

I offered a very serious critique of the standard economic model (which even the libertarians accept) and you blew it off because you clearly don't understand any basic economics. You even said mathematical models are useless. You have ignored every serious argument presented. You are an empty suit, my friend.

Oh, yeah... I countered that with a reference to Austrian School of Economics. That should have tipped you off to the fact that I know that school of thought, and though you may not understand it, it is a widely accepted theory, and cannot be ruled out because it has been successful when left to work, and only failed when government goons like Bush and Obama have had so little faith in it that they just had to mess it up.

The mind boggles as to how you think Obama has has time to muck up anything yet, you might wait and see how things turn out before making such claims or are you clairvoyant perhaps ?
Actually the Austrian schools ideas are widely known in theory but far from accepted, I would be interested in seeing some examples from you as to where it has been put into practice on a large scale and found to work. The problem with it is that it allows ( by lack of regulation ) companies to grow bigger and stronger with no provision to limit excess , its ironic that you champion this yet adopt an entirely contrary view when it comes to Government ( who at the very least are reigned in by the democratic process ). Big Business ( responsible only to share holders) should be unrestrained and do entirely as it wishes whilst Government ( responsible to all ) should turn a blind eye regardless of the consequencies. On the other hand you maintain that Government has no right to interfere with its citizens in anything but the slightest way yet think it entirely appropriate that Big Business can act in a manner that may have huge implications and consequencies for the public at large....doesn't add up !

I think that you fail to see that those big corporations use the all powerful government as a tool to suppress competition by "regulating" business and making it harder for average people to get a leg up in an industry where there is already a monopoly. Try, if you will, to build your own car. You would never get it on the road because you couldn't get it past all of the stringent safety requirements. Thus, you only have three auto makers in America, thus, a stagnant industry that now teeters on the brink of collapse. It is the lack of diversity that will bring the big three down in the end, and look... see how they topple?

[got tonkaed]

I have a follow-up question Snorri - what exactly are you arguing? What is your position? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that absolute capitalism doesn't work. I don't think anyone can really win an argument by saying "absolute capitalism" does work.

Likewise, you believe that incompetent rich bastards won't achieve a position of power?

Incompetent rich bastards and capitalism don't mix. In a truly capitalist society, everyone starts at 0. There are no Paris Hiltons or Donald Trump, Jrs. Mr. and Mrs. Hilton and Trump Sr. wouldn't give their kids money. They would throw their kids out of the house at age 15 and make them get jobs. Similarly, when Trump Sr. dies, his money wouldn't be given to Trump Jr. (that is generally referred to as hereditary rule). In a truly capitalist society, we wouldn't have estates being passed from generation to generation. Instead, children of the rich would be forced to make money on their own... so, if they were incompetent they would fail.

Ive never come across the bolded. Why exactly in a purely capitalist society, would you not be allowed to inherit wealth?

[MeDeFe]

1. It was over six hundred thousand lives lost in the civil war, and really, the American Government could have saved all of those lives and a ton of money if they would have made the law and simply bought the slaves freedom.

Can you say "massive government spending"?

2. Parents should be responsible for the education of their children. If they want to believe in Creationism, that is their right. As it is now, Americans can't even get it recognized as a theory in the public arena. This is why private and home schools are so commonplace in America.

So because the parents have no clue about what's real science and what's bullshit their children should start out in life with a massive intellectual disadvantage?

[thegreekdog]

I have a follow-up question Snorri - what exactly are you arguing? What is your position? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that absolute capitalism doesn't work. I don't think anyone can really win an argument by saying "absolute capitalism" does work.

Likewise, you believe that incompetent rich bastards won't achieve a position of power?

Incompetent rich bastards and capitalism don't mix. In a truly capitalist society, everyone starts at 0. There are no Paris Hiltons or Donald Trump, Jrs. Mr. and Mrs. Hilton and Trump Sr. wouldn't give their kids money. They would throw their kids out of the house at age 15 and make them get jobs. Similarly, when Trump Sr. dies, his money wouldn't be given to Trump Jr. (that is generally referred to as hereditary rule). In a truly capitalist society, we wouldn't have estates being passed from generation to generation. Instead, children of the rich would be forced to make money on their own... so, if they were incompetent they would fail.

Ive never come across the bolded. Why exactly in a purely capitalist society, would you not be allowed to inherit wealth?

Capitalism is an economic system in which wealth, and the means of producing wealth, are privately owned and controlled rather than commonly, publicly, or state-owned and controlled. Through capitalism, the land, labor, and capital are owned, operated, and traded by private individuals either singly or jointly, and investments, distribution, income, production, pricing and supply of goods, commodities and services are determined by voluntary private decision in a market economy. A distinguishing feature of capitalism is that each person owns his or her own labor and therefore is allowed to sell the use of it to employers.

This, from Wikipedia (your online source for information). I placed the emphasis myself. As we are discussing an entirely unrealistic theory of absolute economics, I would assume that Donald Trump Sr. would not give his children anything because he's a capitalist, and capitalism indicates that "each person owns his or her own labor and [sic] is allowed to sell the use of it to employers." Donald Trump Jr. does not own Donald Trump Sr.'s labor and therefore Junior would have to make his own way. I hope that answers your question.

In your defense, I've never come across this before either. Because, surely, true capitalism benefits neither the rich or the poor. Rather it benefits those who generate the most labor. And, while there may be "more" capitalist national economies, there are no purely capitalist national economies... which, again, is why I asked Snorri that question - what exactly are we arguing here? I theorize that Snorri's original post was simply a way to get all the conservatives fired up so that they would attempt to argue for a purely capitalist economy where (1) none exists and (2) there is no empirical evidence that it would work or not work. If we truly want a real, spirited, and intellectual debate, perhaps there should be a thread arguing about the virtues of socialism as compared to capitalism.

[comic boy]

Slavery was wrong. Blacks are people too and should have been considered when the declaration of Independence said that all men were created equal and were free to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This was a justified application of the federal governments authority. Notice, though, how it did not grow the government or add to its power?

Thats the point, it was obviously the correct solution yet tens of thousands died because they did not agree, who decides what is best for all ? Should the schools in bible belt states be able to teach Creationism as Science and dismiss Evolution as an Atheist inspired fraud, because they would if they had the chance. The United States is one country and the states need to be bound together with Federal administration, tax and other things can be tweaked at local level but central government must drive the economy as a whole.
It is actually laughable that you guys are always complaining about how downtrodden you are and how you have no freedom wheras in fact you are incredibly lucky to have been born where you were, go live in a Sub Saharan village for a year and then you might get some perspective.

Several poor points that you make here...

1. It was over six hundred thousand lives lost in the civil war, and really, the American Government could have saved all of those lives and a ton of money if they would have made the law and simply bought the slaves freedom.

Utterly irrelevent to the point I was making.

2. Parents should be responsible for the education of their children. If they want to believe in Creationism, that is their right. As it is now, Americans can't even get it recognized as a theory in the public arena. This is why private and home schools are so commonplace in America.

It is not the right of parents, or anybody else, to insist that children are taught dogma dressd up as science.

finally,

3. No one is complaining about our lack of rights, only the relentless attempts of the Republicrat political party to strip those rights and liberties away.

Anyway, thanks for your points, please consider thinking about the liberties of the individual before you respond.[/quote]

Please consider being less patronising as it sits rather awkwardly on somebody who spews so much nonsense

[MeDeFe]

But, under this "true capitalism", why would Donald Trump Sr. not be allowed to give all his wealth to his children and decree for it to be distributed after his death? Or even give it to them the moment before he dies? It's a very generous gift, but it's the fruits of his labour, he can give them to whoever he wants, or not?

And if he can't give it away, where would it then go when he dies?

[thegreekdog]

But, under this "true capitalism", why would Donald Trump Sr. not be allowed to give all his wealth to his children and decree for it to be distributed after his death? Or even give it to them the moment before he dies? It's a very generous gift, but it's the fruits of his labour, he can give them to whoever he wants, or not?

And if he can't give it away, where would it then go when he dies?

Because Trump Sr.'s wealth is not the fruit of Trump Jr.'s labor. If Trump Sr. was a true capitalist, even if he were allowed to give his wealth to his son, he wouldn't because that wouldn't be very capitalist of him. True capitalists would say, "Son, I'm not giving you this money. I want you to make your own money based upon your own labor."

Presumably all his loot would go into his grave, never to be seen again. Or perhaps he'd spend it all before he died. The latter would be very capitalist of him.

[comic boy]

I offered a very serious critique of the standard economic model (which even the libertarians accept) and you blew it off because you clearly don't understand any basic economics. You even said mathematical models are useless. You have ignored every serious argument presented. You are an empty suit, my friend.

Oh, yeah... I countered that with a reference to Austrian School of Economics. That should have tipped you off to the fact that I know that school of thought, and though you may not understand it, it is a widely accepted theory, and cannot be ruled out because it has been successful when left to work, and only failed when government goons like Bush and Obama have had so little faith in it that they just had to mess it up.

The mind boggles as to how you think Obama has has time to muck up anything yet, you might wait and see how things turn out before making such claims or are you clairvoyant perhaps ?
Actually the Austrian schools ideas are widely known in theory but far from accepted, I would be interested in seeing some examples from you as to where it has been put into practice on a large scale and found to work. The problem with it is that it allows ( by lack of regulation ) companies to grow bigger and stronger with no provision to limit excess , its ironic that you champion this yet adopt an entirely contrary view when it comes to Government ( who at the very least are reigned in by the democratic process ). Big Business ( responsible only to share holders) should be unrestrained and do entirely as it wishes whilst Government ( responsible to all ) should turn a blind eye regardless of the consequencies. On the other hand you maintain that Government has no right to interfere with its citizens in anything but the slightest way yet think it entirely appropriate that Big Business can act in a manner that may have huge implications and consequencies for the public at large....doesn't add up !

I think that you fail to see that those big corporations use the all powerful government as a tool to suppress competition by "regulating" business and making it harder for average people to get a leg up in an industry where there is already a monopoly. Try, if you will, to build your own car. You would never get it on the road because you couldn't get it past all of the stringent safety requirements. Thus, you only have three auto makers in America, thus, a stagnant industry that now teeters on the brink of collapse. It is the lack of diversity that will bring the big three down in the end, and look... see how they topple?

And your examples of the Austrian school theories working in practice are ?

[got tonkaed]

I believe you are trying to extend the ideal type much to far. I dont think its a serious assertion that people will not pass on their wealth to their descendants. There are very few if any ideologues who do not pass on their wealth to someone, if not their immediate family. To take away that prospect would deincentivize their ownership of labor which is so necessary for the rest of the situation to go.

Its not that you did not answer the question, but i doubt there is a serious argument for this.

[thegreekdog]

I believe you are trying to extend the ideal type much to far. I dont think its a serious assertion that people will not pass on their wealth to their descendants. There are very few if any ideologues who do not pass on their wealth to someone, if not their immediate family. To take away that prospect would deincentivize their ownership of labor which is so necessary for the rest of the situation to go.

Its not that you did not answer the question, but i doubt there is a serious argument for this.

As I understand this thread, we're discussing capitalism in its purest form, not in its most realistic form. Therefore, I agree with your proposition and the propositions of others that state that a rich person wants to give their money to their children. I don't think this has much to do with true capitalism, and, as I've indicated, has more to do with feudalism. In any event...

You've helpfully illustrated my overaching point... which is that to have a serious discussion on the virtues and perils of capitalism, we should discuss it as it applies in a realistic fashion as compared to socialism. Discussing absolute values is fine, but people will always bring the "I doubt there is a serous argument" factors into this. As I've also said, I believe the point of this thread is to show how ridiculous absolute capitalism is. How can Snorri not win such a debate? I could win such a debate and I like to think I'm an ardent capitalist. If we want to talk about capitalism while not extending the idea too far, let's talk about that.

[thegreekdog]

I believe you are trying to extend the ideal type much to far. I dont think its a serious assertion that people will not pass on their wealth to their descendants. There are very few if any ideologues who do not pass on their wealth to someone, if not their immediate family. To take away that prospect would deincentivize their ownership of labor which is so necessary for the rest of the situation to go.

Its not that you did not answer the question, but i doubt there is a serious argument for this.

By the way, on a personal sidenote, my father has indicated numerous times that when he passes away, his estate will go to charity, not to his children. If he's serious (and I believe he is), the idea that people may pass their wealth on to others apart from their descendants is apparently a serious assertion.

[got tonkaed]

I believe you are trying to extend the ideal type much to far. I dont think its a serious assertion that people will not pass on their wealth to their descendants. There are very few if any ideologues who do not pass on their wealth to someone, if not their immediate family. To take away that prospect would deincentivize their ownership of labor which is so necessary for the rest of the situation to go.

Its not that you did not answer the question, but i doubt there is a serious argument for this.

By the way, on a personal sidenote, my father has indicated numerous times that when he passes away, his estate will go to charity, not to his children. If he's serious (and I believe he is), the idea that people may pass their wealth on to others apart from their descendants is apparently a serious assertion.

A singular ancedtoal example does not a societal arrangement make. Nor does what youve proposed thus far indiciate any type of mechanism that could control how people dispersed their wealth, especialy if we refer to more "pure" forms of capitalism, which likely could involve a much weaker state.

I actually see far more of the opposite of your scenario taking place...with things stretching far more toward nepotism and cronyism. Its not that those people dont own their labor power in a way thats vastly different that today, but similarly to today those who would have the opportunity at advantage, along with those who were already in position for it, would take advantage of it.

[thegreekdog]

I believe you are trying to extend the ideal type much to far. I dont think its a serious assertion that people will not pass on their wealth to their descendants. There are very few if any ideologues who do not pass on their wealth to someone, if not their immediate family. To take away that prospect would deincentivize their ownership of labor which is so necessary for the rest of the situation to go.

Its not that you did not answer the question, but i doubt there is a serious argument for this.

By the way, on a personal sidenote, my father has indicated numerous times that when he passes away, his estate will go to charity, not to his children. If he's serious (and I believe he is), the idea that people may pass their wealth on to others apart from their descendants is apparently a serious assertion.

A singular ancedtoal example does not a societal arrangement make. Nor does what youve proposed thus far indiciate any type of mechanism that could control how people dispersed their wealth, especialy if we refer to more "pure" forms of capitalism, which likely could involve a much weaker state.

I actually see far more of the opposite of your scenario taking place...with things stretching far more toward nepotism and cronyism. Its not that those people dont own their labor power in a way thats vastly different that today, but similarly to today those who would have the opportunity at advantage, along with those who were already in position for it, would take advantage of it.

Hmmm... apparently I'm not making myself clear. I agree with you completely and absolutely. As I've indicated any number of times, I'm dealing in absolute forms of capitalism, where a true capitalist would make his son or daughter earn his or her way through his or her own labor. I urge you to reread my previous posts on this thread - I have indicated a mechanism by which people disperse wealth: either they buy things before they die, or they pack their cash into their coffin. Are these realistic? Of course not. Again, I'm illustrating the point that Snorri will absolutely win this argument... and why it's fruitless to argue about capitalism in an absolute form. Anyway, I'll ignore those points because everyone else seems to be ignoring them.

I actually support a 100% estate and gift tax, which would encourage both spending and discourage hereditary wealth. I acknolwedge that, even with a 100% estate and gift tax, the wealthy would have better access to education and other amenities which would help pave the way for their children being successful in a capitalist society. But, I would think that a 100% estate and gift tax would discourage "incompetent rich bastards" from succeeding (because they are incomptent).

[Snorri1234]

I have a follow-up question Snorri - what exactly are you arguing? What is your position? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that absolute capitalism doesn't work. I don't think anyone can really win an argument by saying "absolute capitalism" does work.

There are fields where it has been shown that going for pure capitalism doesn't work. My argument is against the people who advocate that capitalism always works on any level and that people are not constrained by their circumstances. I know that it's impossible to lose this argument, but there are actually people who believe in "absolute capitalism".


Basically, I'm saying that the libertarian mindset is based on bollocks.

[got tonkaed]

I am with you entirely, ive been posting nothing but comments about the pure theoretical either. I just think that theory is incredibly inconsistent with the incentive program devised by all capitalist thought ive ever come across. I dont think its valid. People may work for a time simply on the notion that they can have nicer things, but it will not sustain the system, nor will people allow for taking the money into the grave.

I wont toot my own horn and claim to know something everyone else doesnt here, but in the fair amount ive read that deals with economics and incentives for economic activity, i have never come across such a program as you described. I believe to reiteriate that it not only would be practically unattainable in any pure or theoretical framework (how do you prevent theft?) but it goes against the primary incentivizing methods required to make the work in a capitalist system go.

Again, i would need to see something more than the wikipedia link (which is even a stretch to imply this off of that) to take this as a workable posit, even as a theoretical.

[thegreekdog]

I have a follow-up question Snorri - what exactly are you arguing? What is your position? Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that absolute capitalism doesn't work. I don't think anyone can really win an argument by saying "absolute capitalism" does work.

There are fields where it has been shown that going for pure capitalism doesn't work. My argument is against the people who advocate that capitalism always works on any level and that people are not constrained by their circumstances. I know that it's impossible to lose this argument, but there are actually people who believe in "absolute capitalism".


Basically, I'm saying that the libertarian mindset is based on bollocks.

I'm a registered libertarian. I do not agree with all of their planks, but generally I believe that less regulation is better for me than more regulation (in nearly all areas of life... economic, sexual, religious, etc.). I don't think it's based on bollocks, or at least I hope not, otherwise I've wasted most of my life. Admittedly, I'm not an economics expert (though I know a thing or two about taxes). Most of my evidence is culled from my own life (I'm an entirely selfish person and if something affects me negatively, I dislike it, if it affects me positively, I like it).

And, yes, there are people who believe in absolute capitalism; they are idiots; you win. Good job.

[thegreekdog]

I am with you entirely, ive been posting nothing but comments about the pure theoretical either. I just think that theory is incredibly inconsistent with the incentive program devised by all capitalist thought ive ever come across. I dont think its valid. People may work for a time simply on the notion that they can have nicer things, but it will not sustain the system, nor will people allow for taking the money into the grave.

Again, we agree. I always question the logic of someone who is an ardent capitalist, who, at the same time, does not require their children to get jobs when they come of age, give their children money for cell phones, computers, big screen TVs, et. al., and generally do not espouse the capitalist principles they so ardently defend when dealing with their children. If there's anything I cannot stand, it's a hypocrit.

[PLAYER57832]

For example, if I am interested in becoming a musician, I should put myself in a place where I can be around music and musicians as much as possible. If I like being a criminal, then I suppose that I can put myself around criminals to learn the trade. In either case, I, by the nature of my own decisions, and ultimately responsible for my own freedom.

And exactly how do you do that without money, without being born to a family that can give you those options?

You assume a lot.

I happen to think that science is a tool that will ultimately prove that God exists.

I agree.

And it has nothing to do with captialism. In fact, Christ was pretty socialistic.

Your models, in a perfectly predictable and controllable environment, are suitable. But when they are in such an environment as the economy, you are no better off trying to predict the weather. You will, at some point, make a mistake, and it will likely be colossal.

and the alternative is better?

See, that's where you are wrong. I do not need you to survive. You may need others to gather your food for you, fix your car for you, entertain you... but I don't. I can hunt, fish, forage... What you don't know is that I am a survivalist. I don't need you to survive. I don't need a government to take care of me. Ever since 911 I have been teaching myself how to survive. You could do it too, if you would just convince your self that you were man enough to do it.

Sorry, but I happen to know a good deal about this. There are several problem. Notably, there just are not enough wild resources to support more than a few individuals. That's why humanity invented farming and industry.

In your "survivalist" scenario, those will be the strongest... those born with wealth, and a few with special skills in weaponry and the like.

Thirdly ... I am not "man" enough for anything ... but I am intelligent and resourceful enough for a good deal more than I suspect you have ever encountered. Specifically, I have kids.

[flashleg8]

First if all let me apologise for not reading the whole thread (7 pages in 3 hours!) but I feel I must contribute from a Marxist perspective.

The argument about "true" capitalism (seeming to mean a market free from all forms of state control) and the existing capitalist system (one with limited state regulation and some protectionism) is really irrelevant. These systems are one and the same. They are both inherently instable and cannot survive. As Marx described, capitalism contains the seeds of its own destruction. Communism is the inevitable end to the process of human evolution.

Capitalism cannot continue due to internal inconstancies in the system (using dialectic materialism). The tendency for the rate of profit to fall, the exploitation of workers using the labour theory of value and the increasing concentration of wealth lead to a weakness in the system that cannot survive. All of these theories hold true no matter how you artificially divide the concept of capitalism.

The current financial situation is only another symptom of the underlying instability in the system. No amount of reform will "cure" the problems. The system must and will be overthrown - only the method used is a question of debate.

[PLAYER57832]

Several poor points that you make here...


Parents should be responsible for the education of their children. If they want to believe in Creationism, that is their right. As it is now, Americans can't even get it recognized as a theory in the public arena. This is why private and home schools are so commonplace in America.

Creationism has been a recognized theory for a few thousand years, but it so happens that it was DISPROVEN, conclusively, a bit over 60 years ago. The rest of us just see no benefit to teaching old, disproven theories as if they were still valid.

. ... any more than we see the need to teach that the world could be flat, that the earth might revolve around the sun or any number of other once considered, but now disproven theories.

The rest of us just want our limited school resources teaching REAL, PROVEN science and not "Someone told me this is what the Bible has to say "(never mind the many Christians who refute this), so I believe that and not the millions of scientists throughout history who have shown the Earth HAS to be ancient, that evolution occured and Evolution is very, very, very likely.

However, if you wish to debate Creationism, there are already threads for it... and I am STILL waiting anyone to show me all this evidence that exists. (and please.. I am quite familiar with the Institute for Creation Research, etc.)

[joecoolfrog]

Player

No disrespect meant but how would you envisage science proving the existence of God and would such a scenario be capable of disproving him as well, I cant really see how either would be possible.

[PLAYER57832]

Player

No disrespect meant but how would you envisage science proving the existence of God and would such a scenario be capable of disproving him as well, I cant really see how either would be possible.

Neither can I. And, I suppose, I really don't think science will prove God exists, because I don't believe God wants us to do so. However, it is theoretically possible.