text: As scientists study field theories, they come across situations they can't explain or can't solve consistently.  Then, someone may say, "What if there were a particle like this with these properties?  How would that fit into out theories?"  The scientific community then does calculations and thought-experiments to predict behavior of the particles and how they might explain observed phenomena.  If they find too many problems and contradictions, they discard the idea and try another, because they have proved the particle can't exist.  But if they find no contradictions, they can't prove it doesn't exist.\n\nThe most convincing way to prove it does exist is to find it or to build it.  It took a long to find meaningful evidence of the top quark.  Until then, it was just a proposed, hypothetical particle.  Those studying this hypothetical particle had enough 'faith' or confidence in their work that it could be real, that they were willing to devote their lives and carreers to finding the answer.  But they weren't betting their eternal destiny.  If the top quark were never found during their lifetime, they would be disappointed, but they would be satisfied that their dilligent efforts built up evidence against their existence and helped reach a reasoned evaluation that their existence was extremely unlikely.\n\nThey were working on a question of right or wrong, not a question of good or bad.  If God created me and (legitimately) makes demands on my behavior, then it is my highest duty to learn what God expects of me and to obey.  If I don't do that, I'm not simply wrong about some matter of fact.  I have violated the supreme, most fundamental law of my existence.  It's only reasonable to expect a penalty for that.  A stiff penalty, since I have failed to accomplish the purpose of my existence.  If I'm wrong about the top quark or about tachyons, I may still have contributed to science.  Newton was no less a great scientist because he didn't consider relativity or quantum mechanics.\n\nAnother difference is that quarks and tachyons and gravity waves are matters of physical science.  They are subject to physical measurement and experimentation.  We might not have the technology to do the experiments.  I know of no experiment we can perform and get the results while we are alive to prove or disprove the existence of God.\n\nWe can study the theories.  If God is real and provided truth about Himself to us in the Bible, then what does it mean?  Many people have studied that and have concluded it is true.  Then, they place their 'faith' in God as revealed in the Bible.  They are betting their eternal destiny that by doing so, they are obeying God's laws, funfilling their purpose, achieving the rewards for obedience, and avoiding the penalties for disobedience.  If they are wrong, the consequences could be severe, or there could be no consequences at all.  They are motivated to study the message for consistency.  They look at predictions made by prophets of God and study history to see if they came true.  The penalty for a false prophet was death.  All of the prophecies whose time of fulfillment has passed have come true.  That's not proof, but it's very strong evidence.  Scientists make predictions based on theories all the time.  If experiment shows the prediction is wrong, they go back and modify the theory.  In true science, there is no death penalty.  But if a large body of experimental evidence supports a scientific theory, scientists tend to believe the theory.  If a large body of evidence supports the idea of the God of the Bible, some people believe it, but some choose not to believe it, because it makes demands on their behavior and acknowledges a power higher than they are.  It's not simply a matter of believing a fact.  It has fundamental implications about who we are.  Belief in tachyons doesn't do that.