Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 408. (Read 845654 times)

I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  All of that reinforces exactly what I said.  The simplest explanation that explains all of the facts without introducing additional unverifiable assumptions is that he is a liar.  Claiming otherwise introduces additional 'facts' that can't be accounted for, i.e. assumptions.

lol.  You think proof doesn't exist because you will it?  

I've proved the FSM exists in one post.  In over 100 120 pages, you couldn't prove your god exists.  I think you've been schooled.    

Science as a method doesn't use ifs.  Ever.  We always know exactly what to do next.

Again, you are talking about science in the context of being a body of knowledge, i.e. the conclusions, and even then you're really stretching it.  There's something called a margin-of-error in science, and it's always utilized.  And for that very reason, we never say "prove" in science, and even if we do, there's an unspoken "within such-and-such margin-of-error" footnote attached to it.  Specifically, the reason we can never say "prove" is because we would need to evidence all cases prior to our observations and also all cases that ever could arise in the future.

The problem is that religions are faith-based systems.  I'm not necessarily saying faith is the problem, but in this debate, it's a huge problem for you and your argument.  You're dissing science because you're essentially complaining that one can always formulate more questions after a scientific conclusion, even with something as seemingly concrete as a scientific law (e.g. "Is it possible that Universal laws can change over time?").  But, in contrast, you defer to and advocate for a religious view (by the way, you invoke a false dichotomy, here -- a fallacy in its own right) by basically claiming that it gives you all the answers so that you don't need to ask any more questions.

And so, getting to the root of your problem, you completely gloss over the relationship between faith and reason, where one uses evidence to justify faithfulness.  Accordingly, even with faith, you depend on reason and evidence, and by undermining an inductive process like the scientific method, you are undermining your own inductive reasoning that leads you to live with a religious world view.

Here, I'll defer to the Bible, and remind you that Jesus advised to have faith "the size of a mustard seed."  And, as you know, while capable of growing, mustard seeds are very, very small.

No proof when the three of us disagree. 

Hey the joint, this is my reply to you

I provided proof the FSM exists.  You claim I confused him with another god, which I didn't.  There can be no other god than the FSM, according to you.

My proof still stands.  

Just did it, above your post here ^^^.



EDIT: Got another cup of coffee.

I notice no one can refute my proof that the FSM exists.   

Now bl4kjaguar would suggest that you are on his side - no hierarchy. 

When we talk about the material world, that is actually a philosophical concept, so in the same way, if I say that 'reality is spiritual', that is also a philosophical concept, and reality itself is not a concept.

"You cannot deny the experiences of others."

There is no devil - the FSM isn't weak and wouldn't allow it.   

Vod, out of curiosity, do you allow for the following possibilities?

1) There may be one God and there may be people who have gained legitimate and true insight into the existence of God, but due to the existence of many civilizations spanning vast periods of time, in different parts of the world, and with their own genetic and cultural differences and influences, there have resulted countless contradictory interpretations of God?  Or, more simply put, do you allow the possibility that people fucked up the interpretation of something actual?

2) Stemming from #1, that there may be some aspects of the Bible that are true and some that aren't?  Here, I'm speaking to the spiritual aspects of the Bible, and not just something like "Did so-and-so exist."

3) That God may exist, but that those with malintent and in a position of power intentionally skewed the truth to control others (rather than just making the whole thing up)?

And, if I had to guess your response, I'd imagine it to be something like, "No, because now we have the scientific method to test for such claims, and we have no evidence for them."

You mistake the devil for the FSM. 

Milk eh?  Good for you.

The FSM states he will make his body available for nourishment.  I had pasta for lunch.  That proves he exists.  Since there can be only one god, according to you, that means your god cannot exist.

And also,

"belief in all gods" is not the same as "belief in god by any name".

Your accusation is unfounded because insolvency is not theft.

You do not deny this, so you must admit it.

The science that uses the "if"s, when promoted as truth, shows that the promoter is either ignorant, or a propagandist. Play with the meanings of words if you want. But stay focused on the point.

I got a glass of milk this time. But I'll probably go back to coffee when the milk is gone.

Exactly.  Lie to me once, and I won't believe anything else you say.  That's a main reason I'm such a good scam buster.

Pay your debts and we'll chat further, thief.

Ah, so your respect for me determines the truth value of what I say to you?

If we were equal, I would answer your question.  But you are nothing more than a petty thief, so your posts mean nothing to me.

Pay your debts, and I will respect you as a person again.   Right now you have the same amount of respect I give the forum idiot, dank.