I know this is way OT, but this issue must be addressed.
I'm just confused since by your definition...
Quote:
I know that the scientific method is the contrary to proving things, rather.
To be correct, the scientific method has been unsuccessful in disproving many things. These things, not yet disproved, are what we call knowledge.
...the scientific method has been unsuccessful at disproving the existence of god. Therefore, since god has not been disproved we call god knowledge
Doesn't make much sense to me. 
Quote:
So if you actually have an example where knowledge has been found in science by means of a proof, I'd be interested in seeing it.
The problem I see is that you limiting your definition of "proof" to the mathematical/logical sense (hence my original assertion that you were a mathematician). There are many other ways to prove things which is why I bring up the Scientific Method. Proof is merely the steps taken to affirm that your original hypothesis is true. Hence, experiements are the way that scientist find proof and it is these kinds of proof, experiments, that I'm after in this thread (since, as I explained in the beginning, people claim that science can be used in this theological manner)
Example: neutrinos.
In order to explain the misssing energy in beta decay, Pauli postulated the existance of neutrinos. This was pure theory based on the principle of Energy Conseration. In order to prove that his assertion was right, experiments were later performed that fit what Pauli described exactly... in short, experiments PROVED theory.
What was your dissertaion on? Still curious...
