What has ever been proved beyond doubt?

Is the Earth really spherical? Or is that just a figment of human perception? Perhaps it is really flat and we just can't get our minds around how that could be so.

So, yes, your rhetorical statement is valid. There is no such thing as absolute proof.

And, what is even more interesting, is the way in which our knowledge keeps expanding. So, for example, we keep finding new forms of life existing under more and more extreme conditions. And the boundaries to infinity keep getting further away!

Now you bring us back to Earth with the observation that Anthropogenic Global Warming has still not been disproved.

I doubt it ever will be disproved. Or proved. It doesn't really matter. There isn't time to find out the truth before the consequences are upon us. Just as America was discovered before most of the inhabitants of the planet had accepted that the "world" was round. (I have no evidence for that, I just thought it up, but it sounds quite probable to me). If what the majority of scientists are saying is true, then it's too late to do anything significant to prevent AGW and mitigation of the worst consequences is the best we can hope for.

As for God, well, you pays your money and takes your chance.

"In the field of science, show me one thing that has ever been proved beyond doubt, that is not still open to question by science."

Nothing is ever proven completely beyond doubt but there are some things that are so well supported that in practice they may as well be beyond doubt, things like the existence of gravity, the fact of evolution or the fact that global warming is happening and caused by us.

"While you're at it, you can cite me one peer reviewed paper that conclusively contradicts AGW."

A lot of the ones cited as contradicting it actually turn out to support it, this is very similar to how creationalists will cite articles that support atheistic evolution (and contradict Christian myths) in support of their arguments.

"One last request; Show me a scientific paper disproving the existence of God."

Arguments have been made that some types of god can not exist, either due to being logically contradictory or contradictory to reality. A deistic god that didn't interact with the universe would be impossible to disprove (but also impossible to prove, and atheism is the default if you have no data either way).

But anyway, we don't believe global warming is happening, or that evolution is the process by which life became more complex just because no one can disprove them (although lack of disproof is a necessary condition it is not sufficient), instead we believe such things because the evidence is that they are likely to be true (or at least good approximations to reality).

When it comes to the question of whether or no there is a god, the atheists automatically win the argument unless the theists can provide some actual proof of their god (which they have not managed to do despite thousands of years of trying).

Whether one speaks for or against the existence of God, the central point is God. You say, "I hope you understand that it is not the way with science to provide proof for things that do not exist." But we see that the so-called scientist is very busy trying to prove the nonexistence of God. If God has no existence, why bother about Him? According to logic, one cannot conceive of a thing that does not exist. And if a nonexistent entity is inconceivable, where is the question of even discussing it, whether positively or negatively? It is the peculiar madness of many socalled scientists that they cannot seem to get off the subject of God, who according to them has no existence. We see that the whole aim of their scientific research is to justify their rebellion against the authority of God and the scriptures by trying to find an alternative cause and reason for life and creation. Although these scientists would like to believe that life originated from inert chemicals, no one has ever observed such an event. Therefore, a science based on such beliefs can only be a science of rascals and fools.

show me a scientific paper proving the existence of god, tell me what agw is and i'll see about refuting it.all "proofs" in science are open to question ,that's the scientific method. if you need proof that scientific method works look around you,all our technology,computers ,medicine,engineering all prove science,notice your laptop lots of science there,if god is so great why didn't he give you a laptop ,but science did.

No one can show you anything that has been proved beyond doubt. Physicists can say that Newtonian physics work on a large system, but can't explain it at a particle level, because with our limited knowledge it looks chaotic and the formulas don't work. Along comes quantum physics, but there's a long way to go. Mankind has invented so many mechanical systems to work with Newtonian physics, and much of it is taken for granted.

Point is, we have a lot to learn about climate science, but we understand how the large system works.

Well there is exactly as much and just as well proven evidence for the existence of god as there is for the hypotheses that Co2 causes global warming and that our current warm period is in some way radically worse than the 3 other that have preceded it in the last 2,000 years.

Well Bestonnet got 2 out of 3 correct, AGW is still a poorly documented hunch striving to become a hypotheses and not getting very far in that direction because all the evidence points the other way when you try and check it out. It will probably never achieve the high honor of becoming a theory because that requires independent conformation through scientific method.

The one thing that has been proven beyond doubt is that nothing can be!

Everytime I drop something, Murphy's Law dictates that it will land in a way I don't want it to.

Great question, in many a category.

u wanna show me scientific paper disproving existence of God???? if its scientific, it's always disproving god! evolution is scientific while creation is spiritual!!! duh!