Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

“It's so easy to become a grumbler, someone who condemns and carps at everything on principle and sees an ulterior motive behind it.” -Eric Metaxas

If we find out that we truly are alone in the Universe, whether there’s no other life, intelligent life, or spacefaring life, there’s no doubt that makes us special. But does that make us divinely chosen? Or, even more to the point, does that mean that the Universe was designed to give rise to human beings; with us in mind as the end goal? That isn’t necessarily a question we can know the answer to, but it’s something we can approach with science.

Kepler 186f is one of a great many candidates for a very Earth-like planet. Image credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech. Kepler 186f is one of a great many candidates for a very Earth-like planet. Image credit: NASA/Ames/JPL-Caltech.

In particular, we can ask three separate questions:

  1. What are, scientifically, the conditions that we need for life to arise?
  2. How rare or common are these conditions elsewhere in the Universe?
  3. And finally, if we don’t find life in the places and under the conditions where we expect it, can that prove the existence of God?
Reaching, broadcasting and listening for the evidence of others has so far returned an empty, lonely result. Image credit: Victor Bobbett. Reaching, broadcasting and listening for the evidence of others has so far returned an empty, lonely result. Image credit: Victor Bobbett.

The questions themselves are interesting, but what science has to say about all of them might be the most interesting thing of all.

More like this

“Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.” -Winston Churchill There was a piece that ran over this weekend in the Wall Street Journal, claiming that the lack of evidence for extraterrestrial life is actually evidence…
“I hope that in this year to come, you make mistakes. Because if you are making mistakes, then you are making new things, trying new things, learning, living, pushing yourself, changing yourself, changing your world. You're doing things you've never done before, and more importantly, you're doing…
"You can spend too much time wondering which of identical twins is the more alike." -Robert Brault You've of course heard by now the news that Kepler, the most successful and prolific planet-finding mission of all time, has probably reached the end of its useful lifespan. Image credit: NASA /…
"Continue to surprise those who would put you in a neat demographic. Be insistently curious." -Gordon Gee Twenty years ago, our Solar System was the only one we knew of that we were certain had planets orbiting around a main-sequence star. Image credit: retrieved from Universe-Review.ca. Perhaps…

@ #1498

" “You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim …”

You made the claim

Irreelevant,"

You are mistaken.

As you made the claim that Science can proves the existence of God, it is your responsibility to produce the evidence to support your claim.

@ #1500

"Your death cult brainwashed you with terror ..."

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

"You are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you."

Another lie like before, and also irrelevant.

You DESERVE insults you feculant moron, every post you make is just more arrogant and ignorant desperate deception because you're too shit scared of reality and have done too many things that you cannot support,therefore are digging for the "ultimate Get Of Of Jail Free" card, blind bigoted faith in a death cult that insists it doesn't matter how evil you are (since all men are born evil, so "it's not your fault"), but that you get a 100% clean slate if you die believing in the mythical sky fairy the cult foisted on you.

@ #1500

"... And you’re still the victim and promoter of the death cult you follow for no rational reason"

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Do you have any evidence to support that claim?

Yup. Your posts here on this site.

“You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim …”

You made the claim

Irreelevant,”

You are mistaken.

WRONG, you liar.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Will you ever stop lying?

Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients

Proof that no matter how much evidence is given you, you will not even let yourself see it, teabaggie.

Because you're locked in terror looking at your life in hell because your death cult insisted on brainwashing you in that ridiculous and pernicious mythology.

@ #1503
" “You are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you.”

Another lie like before ..."

You are mistaken.

You are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you. Note that I didn't say that you are good at insulting those who disagree with you, merely that you are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you.

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

And when you spend days insisting that you never made any such claim about Ethan's posts, you show how deeply deceiving you are, teabaggie.

@ #1506
" "Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?"

Will you ever stop lying? ..."

That is as non-responsive as your other claims of "proof".

Another lie like before …”

You are mistaken.

Nope. You are, however, a pathological and unashamed liar, teabaggie.

@ #1508

" And when you spend days insisting that you never made any such claim about Ethan’s posts ..."

What I did, and still do, claim is that Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

It is also true that you reject that demonstration.

@ #1506
” “Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?”

Will you ever stop lying? …”

That is as non-responsive as your other claims of “proof”.

So you'll never stop lying, teabaggie. Like when you said you had never made claims about Ethan's posts:

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

"What I did, and still do, claim is that Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists."

Liar:

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

@ #1510
“... You are, however, a pathological and unashamed liar ...”

Yet more of the type of clear-eyed science we’ve come to expect from you.

You are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you.

"You are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you."

Lie.

I'm insulting you because you are a lying little shithead whose god is dead because science proved it was nonexistent.

@ #1513
“… Liar …”

No lying HERE. However, as I have documented,
************************************************
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
************************************************
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
************************************************
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
************************************************
Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"You are good at trying to insult those who disagree with you."

Lie.

I'm insulting you because what you're doing is insulting to you.

You just refuse to face facts and ignore them.

@ #1515

“… you are a lying little shithead …”

Yet more of the type of clear-eyed science we’ve come to expect from you.

You seldom fail to deliver.

Lies like this, teabaggie:

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Will you ever stop lying?

Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients

Your protestations of "no evidence" is a lie, teabaggie, but refusal to face reality is all you have to stave off the terror of your petty existence.

And you find the truth insulting.

Telling the truth and being honest is an option you've never considered. Playing the "victim" and innocent is easier for your denial to accept.

@ #1517
"... I’m insulting you because what you’re doing is insulting to you ..."

There's some amusing scientific insight!.

"@ #1515

“… you are a lying little shithead...""

And that's all you are, teabaggie.

Sucks to be you. Hence your ignorance of reality and the facts.

@ #1519
” “Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?”

Will you ever stop lying? …”

That is as non-responsive as the last time you posted it.

@ #1521
“…Sucks to be you …”

There’s some MORE amusing scientific insight!.

"@ #1519
” “Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?”

Will you ever stop lying? …”""

And you're still in denial. You CANNOT stop lying.

Your belief and terror must not be looked at. So you hide from reality.

You pitiful little snake.

" #1521
“…Sucks to be you …”"

And rather than do something about it, and in contravention of your "Interesting but off topic", since in this case you can "profit" from it, you ignore reality and select the bit you can "deal" with in denial.

Refusing reality again, teabaggie.

@ #1523

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Something a little bit more substantial than a video of someone else.

Or have you decided that you'll never deliver any evidence that Science can prove the existence of God?

Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.

And you are BUSTED, teabaggie! Still.

@ #1521
“… You pitiful little snake …”

There’s yet MORE amusing scientific insight!.

"Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim"

BAck to that claim again, teabaggie?

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Will you ever stop lying?

Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients

And your lies as well about #347?

You flop from me claiming god has been proven to exist to claiming proving god is possible.

Because you really don't give a shit about reality, do you, teabaggie.

Hence your repeated demands for evidence already presented.

@ #1526
“… you ignore reality …”

Ignore reality? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world does not ignore reality.

It is interesting that you should mention ignoring reality, as you’re the one posting off-topic, YouTube videos.

Science works best when it’s practiced honestly; those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, comments #708 & #710 being examples. Cherry-picking the data, or intentionally misquoting others is another type of Scientific Dishonesty, comment #1327 is an example.

A central property of Science is falsifiability. Although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. The reference is available at #1449. So, when someone posts, as was done in #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” it shows that they don’t “get” Science.

Science also avoids contradictions.

You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409.

If as claimed at #1409, “… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”, the event has already occurred.

If the event has already occurred, a contradicting event as claimed at #402, “… Science can prove god exists” in either the preset or the future cannot occur.

In a fundamental sense, people like that don’t know what Science is about.

People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.

"@ #1521
“… You pitiful little snake …”"

You'll do anything to avoid the facts, tebaggie

@ #1530
" "Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Will you ever stop lying? ..."

That is as non-responsive as the last time you posted it.

People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.

like this:

But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science …

Can all scientific hypotheses be proven by Science?

Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.

"@ #1530
” “Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Will you ever stop lying? …”"

Still refusing to stop lying, tebaggie?

Lies like this:

"Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?"

And where you claim

"Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?"

(for example. that one above was #1260)

@ #1533
“… You’ll do anything to avoid the facts …”

Avoid the facts? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world does not avoid the facts.

It is interesting that you should mention avoid the facts, as you’ve posted off-topic, YouTube videos.

Science works best when it’s practiced honestly, facing the facts; those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, comments #708 & #710 being examples. Cherry-picking the data, or intentionally misquoting others is another type of Scientific Dishonesty, comment #1327 is an example.

Science avoids contradictions.

You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409.

If as claimed at #1409, “… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”, the event has already occurred.

If the event has already occurred, a contradicting event as claimed at #402, “… Science can prove god exists” in either the preset or the future cannot occur.

In a fundamental sense, people like that don’t know what Science is about.

People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.

"People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates."

Nonsense like this?

But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science …

Can all scientific hypotheses be proven by Science?

Yup, youre a scientific illiterate.

And a brazen liar, completely unable to stop your lies even when they lie busted around you:

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.

@ #1536

"... Still refusing to stop lying? ..."

As I haven't started, I cannot refuse, can I?

"It is interesting that you should mention avoid the facts"

It is boring that you avoid reality and the facts to spin your take about lies and rely on others being unwilling to wade through the tripe of your comments to see what's really going on, teabaggie. E.g. finding where you say this

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?”

And then where you say this:

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

Because a liar like you cannot be trusted, so you rely on a thousand posts of bullshit to hide your lies.

@ #1536

“… Still refusing to stop lying? …”

As I haven’t started,

Liar:

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

Not forgetting these deceptions:

===
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.

===

You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.

===

I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.

===

In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.

===

have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.

===

Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.

===

One believes without proof that God does not exist.

===

“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.

===

Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.

===

In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.

===

“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.

===

As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.

===

Your proposition is foolish nonsense.

===

As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it

===

“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.

===

“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.

===

. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken

===

“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.

===

As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted

===

And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,

===

LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.

===

Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.

===

You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf

You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.

===

“What? Theology…?”
Wrong again

===

“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”

No, I let you handle that.

===

We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy

===

It’s well documented..

The facts are there whether you admit them or not

Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.

===

““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”

That the total amount of information…

===

“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”

You are mistaken.

===

That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts

===

Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.

===

Now you’re claiming that Science can also explain God.

===

From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,

===

“… “From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,”

So, prove that claim …”

A tool (Science)…

===

A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).

===

a supernatural entity, God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)

===

Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist

===

Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?

===

“Science cannot prove the existence of God”

Yep. Me and everyone else

===

So the definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.

===

This is great, as all the other members of SWAB have been watching me expose your nonsense over and over in this thread.

===

Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God

===

Yet another authority who believes Science cannot prove the existence of God.

===

From your quote from your reference

cf “your cherry pick quote”

===

You have just stated that Science can prove the existence of God due to the fact that God can[not – a lie interjected here] interact in a way with the natural world that can be detected by Science (as God is, by the definition you used is omnipotent – having unlimited power [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnipotent]).

Self-contradiction.

===

People who are in denial are the type of people who provide reference to others while dismissing others’ references.

===

The definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.

Way to go!

cf “god is supernatural, as defined (by me), ergo science can’t prove it”

===

“Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered …”
Only you have posted that.
Go back and look.
Wrong again.

cf when told “you’re saying that no god actions are discoverable”, “I’ve never said that”.

===

You are now claiming that Science, which is unable to completely describe the natural world, will be able to describe the supernatural word.

===

The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.

===

Even your references show why you are

===

Dawkins said “… whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence”

So where is the evidence to support your claim?

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud of yourself

===

“… Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent …”
Another example of cherry-picking your data.

===

That intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324

===

Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false

===

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

===

@ #1539
“ “People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.”
Nonsense like this?
But being a scientific hypothesis, it can be proven by science … “

As most scientific hypotheses cannot be proven, the individual who posted that at #1395 demonstrated Scientific Illiteracy.

That’s correct.

Fortunately, I did not post comment #1395

Nor these deceptions either:

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
===

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented

===

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

===

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven’t shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

===

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

===

”Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy”

On this planet it is proven.
===

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
===

Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

===

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

===

“… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

“I did not ask you to post false statements.”
===

“… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”

Both statements are accurate.

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.

(Note: "needs fleshing out" != "fails to describe" already pointed out)
===

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===
“Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

cf

...as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)..

===

Now you’re defining how God must interact with the natural world

===
That is a Credo
===
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.
===
Claims based on Faith, such as the one @ #870
===

There’s no need to get excited, old bean.

===

As you have been documented engaging in that activity,

===
“… the accusation stands proven.”
Yes, the accusation that you post false statement you know to be false does stand proven.
===

“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a fallacy.

===

“… “Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)?”

Is a formal fallacy: the generic fallacy.”

No, I don’t agree that Ethan’s post is a formal fallacy.

===

Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world.

===

I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.

===

I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.

===

Again, claims based on which admit of no possibility of error (ref here “right with or without evidence”) are assumptions – faith based, not reasoned ones

===

Science can prove the existence of God [the claim], the type of assertion you are making is not the type of assertion normally associated with Science. It is a Credo
===

Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.

===

They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.

cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===

[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.

===

one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “

Yes, that’s correct.

(what is under the elipsis...?)

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===

Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.

===

#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)

===

plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.

===

@ #1543

Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1343), nor the posts referred to (#708, #710, & #1327) go away.

All the evidence is there to support that claim.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, or have you given up on that effort?

@ #1546
"All to hide your lies ..."

I take it then that you'll not be providing evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, correct?

"As most scientific hypotheses cannot be proven"

You are mistaken. Your scientific illiteracy is rearing up again, teabaggie.

@ #1546
“All to hide your lies …”

I take it then that you’ll not be providing evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God

I take it that you acknowledge the implication that the evidence has not been given is a lie, correct?

You know it;s been handed over many times, but you prefer lies to reality.

"@ #1543

Trying to hide the documentation"

Trying to pretend that you've more than lies doesn't work teabaggie.

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?”

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

"@ #1549
“… Your scientific illiteracy is rearing up again …"
You are wrong."

You are lying again.

"@ #1543

Trying to hide the documentation"

TRANSLATION BY CAPTAIN OBVIOUS:

"You have many more examples of my lies and I cannot refute any of them, so I will pretend that this proves me right"

BUSTED captain retard!

As to why your documentation is a pack of lies:

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

"@ #1549
You are wong."

You are still lying.

@ #1553
“… You are lying again…”

No, I'm not lying

However, Let the record speak for itself
................................................
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
................................................
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
................................................
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
................................................
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
................................................
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
................................................
As pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
................................................
You may visit these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.

@ #1557
“… You are still lying …”

No, unlike you, I'm just posting the evidence.

For example
................................................
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
................................................
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
................................................
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
................................................
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
................................................
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
................................................
As pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
................................................
Review these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.

@ #1556
"You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists."

That is correct. You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

What Ethan posted, among other things was " The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be."

"@ #1553
“… You are lying again…”

No, I’m not lying"

Yes you are, teabaggie.

Oh, and before you go with "let the record speak for itself",

This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
…………………………………………
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan

Except you had, you lying shitstain:

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

Not forgetting these lists of your deceptions, which are a few hundred posts out:

===
Coarse language and creating a hostile environment do not substitute for rational argument.

===

You have, to date, provided no evidence to support your claim, and you’re unlikely to do so.

===

I doubt that my comments make up even half those of this thread, much less the quantity of text posted.

===

In re #3: Me telling anyone what to do about #2 is not the point of this thread, but you knew that already.

===

have not asserted that science cannot possibly be used to prove God. Neither, for that matter has Ethan, and you also knew I have not claimed Ethan said it when you posted that falsehood.

===

Besides the absence of any scientific theory of the Mind, there is Physicalism‘s problems with Knowledge.

===

One believes without proof that God does not exist.

===

“… Because teabaggie here is a christian apologetic trying to troll the site.”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.

===

Each of asserts that what they consider to be evidence “proves” their position. Hasnain is the other side of a two-sided coin. They are both True Believers.

===

In re the last sentence: As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.

===

“… so in your opinion, God created a world in which human science is limited and unable to reach him …”
I have not expressed that opinion. You are not alone in attempting to put words into my mouth.

===

As that shoe fits you well, wear it with pride.

===

Your proposition is foolish nonsense.

===

As Science cannot describe all the natural world, and as you conclusion depends on it

===

“… Except you think “god” means “the christian god” …”
You have no evidence to warrant that claim.

===

“You even admit that a ghost opening a door …”
You are mistaken, for I have not done so.

===

. I’m merely pointing out that you are mistaken

===

“… yes, science can prove the existence of god.”
Back to your Faith claim, I see.

===

As for Ethan’s opinion being irrelevant to the topic of his thread, “Can science prove the existence of God?” (20-JAN-17), he took the effort to assist the slow learners when he subsequently (10-FEB-17) posted

===

And now that you have finally discovered that there are, in fact, 8 occurrences of “supernatural” there,

===

LOL! Back to the contradiction in lieu of argument.

===

Ethan had his doctorate in the subject material.

===

You are mistaken. I have not done so.
cf

You are now engaging in what is referred to as “cherry picking the data”.

===

“What? Theology…?”
Wrong again

===

“Contradiction in place of argument ..,”

No, I let you handle that.

===

We’ve already established that you are untrustworthy

===

It’s well documented..

The facts are there whether you admit them or not

Everyone knows about your posting false statement you knew were false when you posted them.

===

““The total amount of information…”
Appeal to authority fallacy.”

That the total amount of information…

===

“… YOU quoted the words of another, therefore it is an appeal to authority fallacy …”

You are mistaken.

===

That just happens to be a fact.
You’re now denying facts

===

Ethan has not posted that god could not be detected, and I have not said he has.

===

Now you’re claiming that Science can also explain God.

===

From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,

===

“… “From this follows that it cannot prove the existence of the supernatural entity,”

So, prove that claim …”

A tool (Science)…

===

A tool (Science) that is unable to provide all measurement in domain A (the natural world) will also be unable to provide all measurements in domain A+B (the natural world and the supernatural world).

===

a supernatural entity, God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God)

===

Those limits to Science, which you now admit exist

===

Are you saying that there are no limits to Science?

===

“Science cannot prove the existence of God”

Yep. Me and everyone else

===

So the definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.

===

This is great, as all the other members of SWAB have been watching me expose your nonsense over and over in this thread.

===

Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God

===

Yet another authority who believes Science cannot prove the existence of God.

===

From your quote from your reference

cf “your cherry pick quote”

===

You have just stated that Science can prove the existence of God due to the fact that God can[not – a lie interjected here] interact in a way with the natural world that can be detected by Science (as God is, by the definition you used is omnipotent – having unlimited power [https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/omnipotent]).

Self-contradiction.

===

People who are in denial are the type of people who provide reference to others while dismissing others’ references.

===

The definition of God is what you present as evidence that Science can prove the existence of God.

Way to go!

cf “god is supernatural, as defined (by me), ergo science can’t prove it”

===

“Even you admit that there are god actions that can be discovered …”
Only you have posted that.
Go back and look.
Wrong again.

cf when told “you’re saying that no god actions are discoverable”, “I’ve never said that”.

===

You are now claiming that Science, which is unable to completely describe the natural world, will be able to describe the supernatural word.

===

The limits to what Science can know are what prevents it from being able to prove the existence of God.

===

Even your references show why you are

===

Dawkins said “… whose truth or falsehood is hidden from us only by lack of evidence”

So where is the evidence to support your claim?

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud of yourself

===

“… Try putting that sentence in place and see if it is even coherent …”
Another example of cherry-picking your data.

===

That intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324

===

Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false

===

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

===

@ #1556
"It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong."

That too is correct. You’re so heavily invested in your belief that you can’t – and will never – admit you are wrong. It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

I am persuaded there is no evidence that will cause you to change your mind.

And this list which is still only a partial list of your lies

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

1) So what?
2) Lie. Many people did.
3) You were one of them.

you love your lies, don’t you, teabaggie.

===
You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.

One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie.

Therefore you have lied.
===

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

Lie. Many people did. You were one of them.

===

#473 As I did not specify either, my criticism of the philosophical position required to support your position stands.

===

357:

” “As my opinion that Science cannot prove the existence of God passed without comment”

===
499:

“… Uh, we can *describe* it quite well. As a brain surgeon.”
You are mistaken

I used the word “mind” not “brain”.
The two are not the same.

It didn’t, though.”
It has so far.

===

If one defines Physicalism as the belief that the universe is only composed of everything known by physics, one can point out that physics cannot describe how the mind functions

===

Unlike some other commenters, I am cautious about what I claim is true.

===

You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
===

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented

===

You: using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one) that rests upon an incomplete philosophical foundation

Ethan: The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There’s a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There’s a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.

===

The interactions you claim show that science can prove the existence of God.

Oh wait! You haven’t shown that.. Your claim lacks evidence and is busted,

===

Ethan’s post showed your tool is inadequate, and I’ve show that its philosophical foundation is incomplete.

Your claim is busted.

===

”Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B

Not proven. And an equivocation fallacy”

On this planet it is proven.
===

” … All that is required is that god CAN so interact….”

Wrong again All that is required is that science measures the interaction. Without the measurement there is no event. And Ethan has explained that science will never know everything about the natural world.
===

Riiiiiiiight! There’s no connection between a post that shows that Science is unable to explain everything in the natural word, and that it would be inadequate to explain an entity which extend beyond that which Science is inadequate to explain, is there?

===

Why do you post false statements known to be false when they’re posted?

===

“… you don’t get to refuse to defend your asinine claims …”

I doubt you can identify any “asinine” (extremely stupid or foolish) claims I’ve made. But feel free to try.

“I did not ask you to post false statements.”
===

“… You: Physicalism fails to describe the mind.
You: While that description may be true for some specific minds, the scientific explanation of self awareness still needs fleshing out.
One is disproof of the other, they are mutually incompatible and as you said, that means one of them is a lie. …”

Both statements are accurate.

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind
To phrase it in gentle terms, the scientific explanation of self-awareness still needs fleshing out.

(Note: "needs fleshing out" != "fails to describe" already pointed out)
===

That sounds like another of your Professions of Faith, O Man of Great Faith

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===
“Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

cf

...as you’re using a tool that cannot describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)..

===

Now you’re defining how God must interact with the natural world

===
That is a Credo
===
While you are entitled to proselytize your Beliefs, this may not be the best forum for doing so.
===
Claims based on Faith, such as the one @ #870
===

There’s no need to get excited, old bean.

===

As you have been documented engaging in that activity,

===
“… the accusation stands proven.”
Yes, the accusation that you post false statement you know to be false does stand proven.
===

“… And it is poisoning the well, another fallacy.”
Documenting your posts @ #798 & #710 is not a fallacy.

===

“… “Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world (much less a presumed supernatural one)?”

Is a formal fallacy: the generic fallacy.”

No, I don’t agree that Ethan’s post is a formal fallacy.

===

Ethan’s post did show that Science is unable to describe all the natural world.

===

I will admit that I prefer Reason to Faith.

===

I prefer Science to what you seem to practice.

===

Again, claims based on which admit of no possibility of error (ref here “right with or without evidence”) are assumptions – faith based, not reasoned ones

===

Science can prove the existence of God [the claim], the type of assertion you are making is not the type of assertion normally associated with Science. It is a Credo
===

Such Faith claims, like yours @ #870 are unassailable by reason.

===

They are, just as yours is, True-Because-You-Said-So, and all are expected to Believe them, and yours.

cf #546
cf "the Mind is natural, while not observed"
cf "You're lying teabaggie"
===

[John response @596] Then what can be known by Science is, in and of itself, insufficient to prove God exists.

===

one of them is a lie. …”
Both statements are accurate “

Yes, that’s correct.

(what is under the elipsis...?)

===

Physicalism does fail to describe the Mind

===

As neither is a disproof of the other, you remain mistaken.

===

Yes, O Man of Great Faith, you do exhibit that behavior.

===

#1001: @990,....
(almost like 11 posts just don't exist,and with the eternal lying of the elipsis elision of what is being said. What was that "Quotemine": used to deceive and cover up a lie by falsifying the events)

===

plus the supernatural world in which your purported God exists.

===

As you say: Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.

Science works when it’s practiced honestly, facing the facts; those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, comments #708 & #710 being examples. Cherry-picking the data, or intentionally misquoting others is another type of Scientific Dishonesty, comment #1327 is an example.

And your lies about what I've said:

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?”

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

Both lies because there was evidence. E.g.

Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients

"Science works when it’s practiced honestly"

And you're a religiotard and don't care for either science nor honesty, so this is really rather irrelevant coming from you, teabaggie.

You lie freely and without compunction, because you have "God" to pray to to forgive you.

Atheists have no safe out and must sort their own problems out without blind bigoted faith.

The advantage being that we're not terrorised into not thinking and ignoring reality like you nutjobs are.

@ #1567
"... God is a scientific hypothesis ..."

That is not the topic, is it? The topic is "Can science prove the existence of God? "

Still no evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God.

Incidentally, Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1343), nor the posts referred to (#708, #710, & #1327) go away.

All the evidence is there to support that claim.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

Science doesn't work when one party (that would be you, teabaggie) lie freely, without compunction and no care about reality.

@ #1568
"... you’re a religiotard ..."

More scientific insight?
LOL!

"@ #1567
“… God is a scientific hypothesis …”

That is not the topic, "

Yes it is, teabaggie. Lying yet again.

Just like before:

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?”

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

"All the evidence is there to support that claim."

Lie.

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

Trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.

@ #1526
“… no care about reality …”

No care about reality? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world does care about reality.

It is interesting that you should mention not caring about reality, as you’ve posted off-topic, YouTube videos.

Science works best when it’s practiced honestly; those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, comments #708 & #710 being examples. Cherry-picking the data, or intentionally misquoting others is another type of Scientific Dishonesty, comment #1327 is an example.

A central property of Science is falsifiability. Although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. The reference is available at #1449. So, when someone posts, as was done in #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” it shows that they don’t “get” Science.

Science also avoids contradictions.

You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409.

If as claimed at #1409, “… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”, the event has already occurred.

If the event has already occurred, a contradicting event as claimed at #402, “… Science can prove god exists” in either the preset or the future cannot occur.

In a fundamental sense, people like that don’t know what Science is about.

People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.

@ #1572
" “… God is a scientific hypothesis …”
That is not the topic, ”
Yes it is..."

You are mistaken. Ethan set the topic as "Can science prove the existence of God? "

"@ #1526
“… no care about reality …”

No care about reality?"

Yup, you're in denial.

Just like evidence of your claims I am a liar fall down with this evidence which exists in reality:

#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

"@ #1572
” “… God is a scientific hypothesis …”
That is not the topic, ”
Yes it is…”

You are mistaken."

And you're lying again, because you know you're wrong but cannot make yourself admit it.

@ #1573
“You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.”

That is correct. You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

"although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409."

Lie. "science HAS proven your god nonexistent!"

But a fundamentalist religiotard wouldn't be able to see that there's a difference.

@ #1578
“… you’re lying again …”

No, unlike you, I’m just posting the evidence.

For example
…………………………………………
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
…………………………………………
Having not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
…………………………………………
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
…………………………………………
As we can see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
…………………………………………
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
…………………………………………
Also, as pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
…………………………………………
Review these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.

"That is correct"

What is correct? Ethan's post does not say science is inadequate to finding if god exists, you moronic retard.

@ #1580
“… fundamentalist religiotard…”

This is your version of Science?
LOL!

“You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.”

That is correct.

Then this is a lie, you shitstain:

"As we can see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said "

What was that about science being about consistency?

You're a lying sack of shit, teabaggie.

@ #1582
"... you moronic retard."

More brilliant Science?
LOL!

""… fundamentalist religiotard…”

This is your version of Science?"

That is your percetption????

And I note the blindness to all the rest of it, because there's evidence in there and you don't see it when its in front of you, do you, you fucking idiot.

"“… you moronic retard.”

More brilliant Science?"

That just illustrates what you "think" science is, fuckwit.

@ #1585
"... this is a lie, you shitstain ..."

I will admit you do try very hard to insult people who disagree with you.

You fail at Science, but you're good with insults.

"Review these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find."

Yup, we find you're a lying sack of shit, teabaggie.

"You fail at Science"

Yet more projection from you, tabaggie,. and a retcon to reality to make you feel better.

Aaaaw. Did oos feewings get hurt? Hate the mean people who won't let your death cult propaganda survive unchallenged? Poor widdle fing.

@ #1584
“… You’re a lying sack of shit …”

Trenchant and penetrating as always.

I suppose we shouldn't expect too much from you

@ #1590
"Yet more projection from you ..."

No, just an observation that you have demonstrated that you didn't know that scientific theories may be disproved, but not proved. You also demonstrated that you didn't know that most scientific hypotheses van't be proven correct.

So, no. You don't "get" Science.

trenchant
ˈtrɛn(t)ʃ(ə)nt/
adjective
adjective: trenchant

1.
vigorous or incisive in expression or style.

penetrating
ˈpɛnɪtreɪtɪŋ/
adjective
adjective: penetrating

able to make a way through or into something.

@ #1590
"... your death cult ..."

Any evidence to back up THAT claim?
As if you need any to believe it.

"that you have demonstrated that you didn’t know that scientific theories may be disproved"

And I observe yet another lie from you.

@ #1593
Sarcasm: Noun. Just beyond your grasp.

"Any evidence to back up THAT claim?"

Yup.

But like before you pretend it hasn't been passed on.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

yet in a post long long before...

Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis – by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients

@ #595
" “that you have demonstrated that you didn’t know that scientific theories may be disproved”

And I observe yet another lie from you."

As that is not a lie...
You're wrong.
Again

I also note the "have you evidence" that you used to "defend" yourself from the truth that you're a christian apologetic. Which turned out to be 100% true.

(hint: if you want to know what a death cult is: it's christianity. And their god is proven nonexistent too).

@ #1597
" “Any evidence to back up THAT claim?”

Yup. ..."

And like your claim at #347, no evidence is provided.

So what else is new?

"And I observe yet another lie from you.”

As that is not a lie…

And I observe yet another lie from you.

@ #1599
"... Which turned out to be 100% true. ..."

Any evidence to back up THAT claim?
Of course not

"And like your claim at #347, no evidence is provided."

So back to this tired old lie again, teabaggie?

No matter how many times I give you the evidence you keep waiting for a lot of posts to pass and then ask again.

"“… Which turned out to be 100% true. …”

Any evidence to back up THAT claim?"

Lots.

Look upthread.

@ #1578
“… I observe yet another lie …”

Unlike you, I’m just posting the evidence.

Some examples are

…………………………………………
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
…………………………………………
Having not made that claim about Ethan, I thought it important to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
…………………………………………
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
…………………………………………
As shown, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
…………………………………………
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
…………………………………………
Also, as pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
…………………………………………
Review these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.

Evidence. Something you don't provide.

@ #1604
" Any evidence to back up THAT claim?”

Lots.

Look upthread."

I didn't THINK you'd be able to provide any evidence.
Now we know you can't

@ #1603

"No matter how many times I give you the evidence you keep waiting for a lot of posts to pass and then ask again."

I'll continue to ask for you to provide evidence to support your claim until you provide some.

"Unlike you, I’m just posting the evidence."

No, unlike me, youre lying and posting yet more lies.

As well as the massive list that is too big to fit in a single post, one of which is the first and never once acknowledged as a lie:

” the only other commenter who has posted about religion was Hasnain.”

It was a lie, since many had posted about it and you were one of them

But not only that:

#1260: “Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

While your claims it was a lie are refuted by you yourself saying that you do hold them to what I claim you did when you wanted to pretend that these were not lies:
#679

You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists.

#650

It won’t make a jot of difference how many ways I, Ethan, or anyone else shows you are wrong.

We both know you're a lying sack of shit, teabaggie, and a completely useless human being, terrified of reality because you know your god doesn't exist.

"Review these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find."

A pack of lies. Something you don’t do.

@ #1608

"... #1260: “Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?” "

Yes. I’ll continue to ask you to provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God until you provide some.

And again, like every religiotard infesting science with their woo anger, evidence to you only exists when it's in your favour.

See here

www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmgKfjr7T8Y

(see his mug at 0:44!)

for another time you tried this.

""Look upthread.”

I didn’t THINK you’d be able to provide any evidence."

I did. Look upthread.

@ #1608

"... You still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists."

Yes. still lack the evidence to warrant your claim, and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists. Ref E. Siegel, "... The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be."

Until until you provide some evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, your claim remains unwarranted.

"I’ll continue to ask for you to provide evidence to support your claim until you provide some."

And when I've provided it, you'll CONTINUE to ask for it until I do. Then you'll CONTINUE to ask for it again...

Meanwhile you have failed to provide evidence for your claims about why science cannot prove the existence of god.

@ #1611

Back to posting YouTube videos in lieu of Science, I see.

I suppose we shouldn't expect much more from you.

"Yes. still lack the evidence to warrant your claim,"

Yup, that's still a lie, teabggie.

"and Ethan’s post demonstrates that the tool you use is inadequate to prove that God exists."

Nope. Nowhere does it claim that.

Ref E. Siegel, “… The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

@ #1612

" " I didn’t THINK you’d be able to provide any evidence.”

I did. Look upthread."

Still unresponsive.

"@ #1612

” ” I didn’t THINK you’d be able to provide any evidence.”

I did. Look upthread.”

Still unresponsive."

I know you aren't, but then again, you're stuck trying to pretend that the evidence I've given you before doesn't exist when it clearly does.

@ #1608
" ... you’re a lying sack of shit ..."

And you still fail at Science, although you are full of ...
Insults.

@ #1618
"... the evidence I’ve given you before doesn’t exist when it clearly does."

Then post it now.

So science has proven that Jesus didn't ever exist, it's proved that the Abrahamic god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims doesn't exist, and it could have proved hey existed, so you are here trying to insist that science never could prove god, so you can pretend that science hasn't proven your god is nonexistent.

Ref E. Siegel, “… The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

Nowhere in there does it even mention god.

So that's a lie from you, teabaggie.

@ #1618
“… Still unresponsive.”

I know you aren’t ...”

Yes, I am not unresponsive.
I've shown you to be mistaken.
Repeatedly.

"@ #1618
“… Still unresponsive.”

I know you aren’t …”

Yes, I am not unresponsive."

Yes, but you still don't see reality.

You;re stuck on a repeat loop of "still unresponsive" loop because you want to pretend that any evidence you don't want to accept has never happened and so force me to type it out again.

Not typing it out for the fiftieth time doesn't make the other 49 copies nonexistent like your god.

@ #1622
" Ref E. Siegel, “… The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

Nowhere in there does it even mention god."

Until you provide some evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, your claim will remain in the part of the universe beyond human knowledge.

Ethan need not dance to your tune to be correct.

"’ve shown you to be mistaken."

No, you've just lied and said "You're mistaken" when I'm not.

"@ #1622
” Ref E. Siegel, “… The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

Nowhere in there does it even mention god.”

Until you provide some evidence to support ..."

None of which will change the words of Ethan.

So in what way was that responsive, teabaggie???

"you are full of …
Insults."

For wimpy streaks of piss like yourself? Yup, sure do have a lot of insults for the mental midget of a death cultist like yourself, teabaggie aka jkeyes1000.

@ #1624
“…you still don’t see reality …”
Not see reality? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is a formal, if limited, attempt to see reality.

No one SEES REALITY. What an infantile idea to pursue! science provides an excellent, selected representation of reality.

Science's reality will do nicely for me, thank you.

It is interesting that you should mention not seeing reality, as you’ve posted off-topic, YouTube videos.

Science works best when it’s practiced honestly; those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, comments #708 & #710 being examples. Cherry-picking the data, or intentionally misquoting others is another type of Scientific Dishonesty, comment #1327 is an example.

A central property of Science is falsifiability. Although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. The reference is available at #1449. So, when someone posts, as was done in #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” it shows that they don’t “get” Science.

Science also avoids contradictions.
You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409.
If as claimed at #1409, “… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”, the event has already occurred.
If the event has already occurred, a contradicting event as claimed at #402, “… Science can prove god exists” in either the preset or the future cannot occur.

In a fundamental sense, people like that don’t know what Science is about.

People who post nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.

@ 1628
" ... wimpy streaks of piss like yourself ..."

Is that your idea of the scientific method?

@ #1624
“…you still don’t see reality …”
Not see reality? You are mistaken.

Yup, a lie, and a cutnpaste of the same lie you made before, so go back and read that refutation of this load of meaningless bollocks from you, teabaggie.

"People who post nonsense are Scientific Illiterates."

And what you posted was scientifically illiterate and morally bankrupt as well as nonsense, teabaggie.

@ #1627
"... So in what way was that responsive ..."

Ethan need not dance to your tune to be correct.

Again,trying to hide the documentation of the false statements you knew were false when you posted them will make neither the documentation (#1381), nor the posts referred to (#357 #1001, & #1370) go away.

"Ethan need not dance to your tune to be correct."

And that just means you were lying, since his words do not change.

@ #1631
“… a lie, and a cutnpaste of the same lie …”

You are mistaken.

If however, what you seek are those posting false statements known to be false when posted, you need look no further ...

................................................
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
................................................
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
................................................
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
................................................
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
................................................
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
................................................
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
................................................
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
................................................
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
................................................

I would seem that you will never produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God.

Why is that?

@ #1634
" “Ethan need not dance to your tune to be correct.”

And that just means you were lying, since his words do not change."

No, it just means that Ethan is under no obligation to post the exact words you say he must in order for him to hold a position contrary to yours.

“… a lie, and a cutnpaste of the same lie …”

You are mistaken.

And this is another repeat cutnpaste lie, Go see my previous replies to you, tebaggie, they were wrong when you first made them, and they're wrong now.

Why is that?

Who knows why you keep asking for what you've been given many times before, tebaggie.

Refusal to accept reality is the only way you have to hold the terror of your death cult at bay.

"@ #1634
” “Ethan need not dance to your tune to be correct.”

And that just means you were lying, since his words do not change.”

No, it just means that ..."

It just means that the words of his you posted do not say what you claim.

That just means that you were lying, teabaggie.

Still.

Repeatedly.

@ #1631
"... And what you posted was scientifically illiterate and morally bankrupt as well as nonsense ..."

What I posted was, in contrast to certain other posts identified in this thread, both accurate and honest.

"No, it just means that …”

It means that you know you were lying about comments at 708 and 710 being mistaken.

"What I posted was, in contrast to certain other posts identified in this thread, both accurate and honest."

Nope, it was neither, and your entire point here is to avoid both those things.

After all, your death cult requires to to be dishonest and inaccurate.

@ #1637
“…this is another repeat cutnpaste lie…”

You remain mistaken.

If you wish to find false statements in this thread that were known to be false to the poster when they were posted, you may find the folloing of interest
................................................
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
................................................
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
................................................
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
................................................
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
................................................
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
................................................
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
................................................
I’ve identified these multiple false statements known false when posted.

@ #1641
"... your death cult ..."

MY death cult?

LOL! If you only knew!

Of course you don't care to know, so that's moot.

@ #1637
“…this is another repeat cutnpaste lie…”

You remain mistaken.

And repeating exactly the same bullshit lies doesn't make it any more truthy, teabagger.

You know you're lying about 708 and 710 because while you're here posting that BS about it being known to be wrong, you're making the claim that the accusation in those posts were casting at you.

You're by far the dumbest tool in the woodshed, teabaggie.

@ #1641
“What I posted was, in contrast to certain other posts identified in this thread, both accurate and honest.”

Nope, it was neither"

Evidence please.

"“… your death cult …”

MY death cult?"

Yup.

"Nope, it was neither”

Evidence please."

Where all the evidence you demand is: up thread, but ignored by you, teabaggie.

@ #1644
"... And repeating exactly the same bullshit lies doesn’t make it any more truthy ..."

As they're not lies, I can't be repeating lies.
Go back and read what was posted.
If you dare.

And STILL waiting for that evidence for your sock-drawer unicorns, teabaggie.

Or are you going to say you already gave me the evidence?

@ #1647

"... up thread, but ignored by you ..."

I cannot ignore what has not yet been posted.

"“… And repeating exactly the same bullshit lies doesn’t make it any more truthy …”

As they’re not lies,"

As they are lies and we both know it, that was a lie too.

"“… up thread, but ignored by you …”

I cannot ignore what has not yet been posted."

But you also ignore what has been posted.

Hell, you ignore it when quoting. Look under some of those ellipses.

@ #1649
"And STILL waiting for that evidence for your sock-drawer unicorns ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

So, unlike yo, I need not provide any evidence.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

So,that evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie.

Where is it? Or are you going to say "Upthread"?

@ #1652
"... But you also ignore what has been posted .."

Like your prattle about unicors?
LOL!

"Will you ever produce any evidence "

Have done. Many times,teabaggie.

@ #1654
"So,that evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"“… But you also ignore what has been posted ..”

Like your prattle about unicors?"

That's not the evidence I asked for, teabaggie.

Try again. Where's your evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer?

@ #1656
" “Will you ever produce any evidence ”

Have done. Many times ..."

I didn't think you'd be able to post any. Now we know for sure.

@ #1658
"... Where’s your evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer?"

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns."

I asked, and I will again, where is your evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie.

But you ARE improving slightly, Now you;re at least SEEING me asking about the lack of evidence.

"” “Will you ever produce any evidence ”

Have done. Many times …”

I didn’t think you’d be able to post any."

And you were wrong. I had done, many times. But you ignored it and pretended it was never posted.

@ #1661
"I asked, and I will again, where is your evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer ..."

And you'll receive the same answer as before. Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1662
"... I had done, many times. But you ignored it and pretended it was never posted."

I cannot ignore what isn't poted, but it seems you can pretend it was.

"“I asked, and I will again, where is your evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer …”

And you’ll receive the same answer as before"

Apparently you do not accept that answer from me, so why do you think it fine when you use it?

Double standards, teabaggie?

Come on, where is your evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer.

@ #1665
"... where is your evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"“… I had done, many times. But you ignored it and pretended it was never posted.”

I cannot ignore what isn’t poted, "

You're mistaken, you don't have to ignore it.

But you DO ignore what has been posted. Still doesn't make it nonexistent, teabaggie.

Damn people this is getting rediculous. The fact was stated that science doesn't prove anything, it merely disproves what's untrue. In an infinite universe, it's pretty hard to disprove some far out things. We aren't even quite sure there is a multiverse of infinite dimensions yet. But many people strongly feel that there must be. You really can't prove that any of this is any more than an illusion or projection anyhow. and that anyone else exists besides yourself. You might just think all of this is actual. GOod luck with that, why bother being science geeks who just thrash on each other all day so they can feel smart?

By Will (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

@ #1665
"Double standards ..."

No double standards at all. Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"“… where is your evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer.”

..., I did not make any claim about unicorns."

I'm still waiting for your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer.

All you've given me is irrelevant bits about "I've made no claim".

Where is the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer?

"“Double standards …”

No double standards at all."

And another lie from you, tabaggie.

"But you DO ignore what has been posted ..."

Yes, I ignore your prattle about unicorns

"... Still doesn’t make it nonexistent ..."

Then show evidence to support your claim.

You've also not said that the evidence is "Upthread". Why is that, teabaggie?

If you'd already posted that information despite me continuing to ask for it, you could have just said "Upthread" and made me look for it.

@ #1670
“…another lie from you …”

That is a mistake

If you wish to find fase statements in this thread known to be false to the poster when they were posted, read below
................................................
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
................................................
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
................................................
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
................................................
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
................................................
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
................................................
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
................................................
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
................................................
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
................................................
Do you have, and if so do you plan to provide any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"“But you DO ignore what has been posted …”

Yes, I ignore your prattle about unicorns"

Apparently you still refuse to give me the evidence of unicorns living in your sock drawer.

Where is that evidence, teabaggie?

@ #1672
"You’ve also not said that the evidence is “Upthread”. Why is that ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Can you present any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1670
“…another lie from you …”

That is a mistake

And a cutnpaste of the same lies as before, still as completely batshit crazy, look above for the refutation of the points, including that his use of ethan's post recently is also doing what he claims was a lie from me.

@ 1674
"... give me the evidence of unicorns living in your sock drawer."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Can you present any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"“You’ve also not said that the evidence is “Upthread”. Why is that …”

I did not make any claim about unicorns."

You're still not answering my question: where is the evidence for unicorns living (or whatever) in your sock drawer?

@ #1676
"... a cutnpaste of the same lies as before ..."

As they were not lies then, they cannot be the lies of "before", can they?

@ #1676
"... still as completely batshit crazy ..."

Still just as scientifically insightful.

"@ #1676
“… a cutnpaste of the same lies as before …”

As they were not lies then"

Since that claim is a lie, and they were lies, we have a repeat of that lie too from you, teabaggie.

@ #1676
“… still as completely batshit crazy …”

Still just as scientifically insightful.

Do the ellipses appear in your head from the original, teabaggie? Or do you just skip the content?

You may find that the problem isn't my comment, it's your inability to read. Or think.

@ #1670
“… that claim is a lie …”

Not so. For those seeking false statements in this thread known to be false to the poster when they were posted, read on...
…………………………………………
@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
…………………………………………
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
…………………………………………
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
…………………………………………
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
…………………………………………
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
…………………………………………
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
…………………………………………

I’ve identified multiple false statements known to be false when made.

…………………………………………

Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.

…………………………………………

Do you have any plans to provide evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1682
"... You may find that the problem isn’t my comment, it’s your inability to read. Or think ..."

But I can always count on you for trying to use insults in lieu of argument.

@ #1670
“… that claim is a lie …”

Not so.

A cutnpaste of the same old bullshit lies follows. See previous replies.

An extra dollopin case you can't be arsed, check out whether this claim came from retardo profundo here and whether it's true or a big fat lie:

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

"But I can always count on you for trying to use insults in lieu of argument."

Given that you were not making an argument that required anything other than an insult for your deserved lack of intelligence, what's the problem here, teabaggie?

Your post was asinine and you were an ass making it.

Stop making your defective intellect my problem.

@ #1685
“… A cutnpaste of the same old bullshit lies …”

As they were not lies then, they cannot be "the same old bullshit lies”, can they?

So, still waiting. Where is that evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie?

@#1686
"... Your post was asinine and you were an ass making it ..."

As insightful as we've come to expect from you.

"“… A cutnpaste of the same old bullshit lies …”

As they were not lies then,"

Another cutnpaste lie.

@ #1688
"... Where is that evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

1689 still missing that evidence. Where is the evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie?

@ #1690
““… Another cutnpaste lie"

yet another mistake.

@ #1692
"... Where is the evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

Unlike you, I need not provide any evidence.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"“… Where is that evidence of unicorns in your sock drawer …”

I did not make any claim about unicorns."

I never asked you to repeat claims about unicorns in your sock drawer.

So far you're just repeating your evasions,. Where is the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie?

@ #1690
““… Another cutnpaste lie”

yet another mistake.

Yup, but you still make the same idiot mistake when you're trying to avoid telling me where that evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is.

Your avoidance there is also a mistake. If you told me where that evidence was, we could get off the question of where it is.

@ #1695
"... Where is the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer ..."

I did not make any claim about unicorns, unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.

I need not provide any evidence, unlike you.

Will you present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1696
““… Another cutnpaste lie”

yet another mistake.

Yup"

I'm glad we agree about your mistake.

@ #1695
“… Where is the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer …”

I did not make any claim about unicorns

I did not ask you to repeat claims about unicorns, I'm asking where the evidence is. So far you're avoiding saying. Why, teabaggie?

@ #1699
"I did not ask you to repeat claims about unicorns, I’m asking where the evidence is ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need not provide any evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"@ #1696
““… Another cutnpaste lie”

yet another mistake.

Yup""

And another lie from you there, teabaggie. Normally you indicate your deception with an elipsis. This wasn't a better lie.

But I suppose you need to avoid telling me where this evidence of unicorns in sock drawers is.

Nobody knows why you can't say.

"I did not make any claim about unicorns."

I'm not asking you to repeat your claims. It doesn't matter. I want to know where ANY of the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is.

You keep avoiding saying, and this is suspicious.

@ #1701
“… And another lie from you …”

No lie HERE, but if you wish to find statements in this thread known to be false to the poster when they were posted, read on
................................................

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

................................................

As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it prudent to establish this fact.

Now we get to #681,
................................................
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
................................................
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
................................................
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
................................................
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
................................................
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
................................................
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.
................................................

Do you plan to provide any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1702
"... I want to know where ANY of the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is. ..."

I did not make any claim about unicorns, unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.

I need provide no evidence, unlike you.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1701
“… And another lie from you …”

No lie HERE

Repeat cutnpaste of the same earlier lie, spammed because you're unable to say where the evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer is, and won't say anything on the subject.

But you're a liar like when you said this:

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

Another claim you've insisted was never made. Just like you claim about your sock drawer unicorns.

@ #1702
“… I want to know where ANY of the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is. …”

I did not make any claim about unicorns

I want to know where ANY of the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is

@ #1705
"... spammed because you’re unable to say where the evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer is ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need not provide any evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1706
"I want to know where ANY of the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is"

I did not make any claim about unicorns, unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.

I need provide no evidence, unlike you.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"I did not make any claim about unicorns."

Still not telling me where this evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer is, though, why do you find it impossible to answer this?

@ #1709
"Still not telling me where this evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer is ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need not provide any evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

“I did not make any claim about unicorns.”

While waiting for you to answer the question I DID ask you, why do you want me to trawl this near-2000-post thread? I'm giving you a pass here, you can give me ANY evidence for unicorns in sock drawers. Those drawers don't even have to be YOURS.

By not limiting you to a claim about unicorns, you're free to retcon your evidence to any claim you think up at this moment.

Or are you worried that I've copied some proof of your claims and are shit scared of being caught out again like you were with this claim from you:

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

“I did not make any claim about unicorns.”

I'm still not telling me where this evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer is, though, why do you find it impossible to answer this?

#1712
"I’m still not telling me where this evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer is, though, why do you find it impossible to answer this?

I'm pleased to know you are still not telling me.

In re evidence for sock drawer unicorns, unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I made no claim about unicorns.

As a result, I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

By John Seal (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

@ #1711
"... you can give me ANY evidence for unicorns in sock drawers. Those drawers don’t even have to be YOURS ..."

Feel free to search the drawers of whomsoever you wish in search of whatsoever your fancy might be.

As I made no claim about unicorns, I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

By John Seal (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

"Feel free to search the drawers of whomsoever"

So why do you whine when I tell you your data is upthread, when you're happy with telling me to look through people's sock drawers, jkeyes1000/teabaggie?

All I'm asking is where is the data showing unicorns that live in your sock drawer!

But you seem incapable of answering! WHY????

"I made no claim about unicorns."

I've asked what evidence you have for unicorns in your sock drawer, I'm not asking you to repeat your claims about unicorns.

But you remain suspiciously evasive!

@ #1715

"All I’m asking is where is the data showing unicorns that live in your sock drawer!"

I hope you are patient, for as I made no claim about unicorns, I shall provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

@ #1716

"... I’ve asked what evidence you have for unicorns in your sock drawer, I’m not asking you to repeat your claims about unicorns.

But you remain suspiciously evasive!"

As I made no claim about unicorns, I have nothing to evade.

“I made no claim about unicorns.”

I’ve asked what evidence you have for unicorns in your sock drawer, I’m not asking you to repeat your claims about

"unicorns.I have nothing to evade."

You're evading the answer, though. Where is the evidence for the unicorns in your sock drawer, teabaggie?

Your evasion is highly suspect, why are you so evasive on such a simple question???

@ #1719
"... I’ve asked what evidence you have for unicorns in your sock drawer ..."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

“I made no claim about unicorns.”

I’ve asked where the evidence that you have for unicorns in your sock drawer is.

Please stop denying as a diversion form answering.

@ #1721
"... I’ve asked where the evidence that you have for unicorns in your sock drawer is ..."

Yes, you have.

As I made no claim about unicorns, I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

"“… I’ve asked where the evidence that you have for unicorns in your sock drawer is …”

Yes, you have."

That's yet more evasion. Where is this evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer!

@ #1724
"... Where is this evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer!"

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"Damn people this is getting rediculous."

Why so late, will?

" In an infinite universe,"

Just because you think it could be infinite (and we don;t know that. Indeed it doesn't have to be by any stretch of the imagination, that still doesn't mean there might be a god out there.

Given this might be the BS that teabaggie is trying on while avoiding answering my rather easy to fulfill requests, is this another sock? Certainly it doesn't seem to be relevant to claim, and not merely unsupported, actually mathematically wrong. There are infinite real numbers, but the infinite set of countable numbers does not hold all the real numbers in it.

Just because it's infinite doesn't mean everything possible has to exist. And that's even discounting that the claim is unsupported that the universe is infinite.

Problem with crying off on someone for "being smart" is you have to be at least as smart in the small area you are posting on, or you end up looking foolish.

" I did not make any claim about unicorns."

I did not ask you to restate a claim about unicorns.

And your insistence on doing this when you can simply answer my question is highly suspicious. Where is the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers?

"Feel free to search the drawers of whomsoever you wish in search "

Uh, why? Why are you telling me to feel free to search the sock drawers? What is the point of that?

Since you're patently refusing to answer my other question, for whatever reason that might be, will you discuss your "advice" about unicorns, sock drawers and evidence?

Why are you telling me to search sock drawers?

E. Siegel: "The total amount of information accessible to us in the Universe is finite, and hence, so is the amount of knowledge we can gain about it. There's a limit to the amount of energy we can access, the particles we can observe and the measurements we can make. There's a whole lot left to learn and a whole lot that science has yet to reveal, and many of the present unknowns will fall in the near future. But some things we will likely never know. The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-will…

So posting some other crap instead of what you're asked for proves what, teabaggie?

Since you patently are avoiding for some insane reason saying where the evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is, care to explain why you told me to go search drawers?

You proffered that freely of your own will and recently.

So you clearly can't refuse to accept this as a topic.

Why did you tell me to go search drawers when I asked you where the evidence is for unicorns in sock drawers?

And, no, Ethan's not a source for your reasoning.

"The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

Uh, so how can you claim that you never made a claim about unicorns, teabaggie? Our knowledge is not infinite! It's partial! And always will be!

Stop dodging. That shows is that the christian god doesn't exist. But it also shows that science can be used to prove the existence of god.

But back to the matter at hand:

“The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

Uh, so how can you claim that you never made a claim about unicorns, teabaggie? Our knowledge is not infinite! It’s partial! And always will be!

And why did you tell me to go search drawers when I asked you where the evidence is for unicorns in sock drawers?

“The Universe may yet be infinite, but our knowledge of it never will be.”

So how can you claim that you never made a claim about unicorns, teabaggie? Our knowledge is not infinite! It’s partial! And always will be!

And stop with your evasion, why did you ask me to search drawers when I asked you where the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers is?

Oops you're right, my bad. I meant the multiverse is infinite. But actually the universe is also infinite.

As any smart person knows. there are infinite real numbers.

However, there are also infinite numbers ending with decimals between each whole number.

1-2-3 or 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.112 you know what decimals are.

And I made several comments preceding that last one, lost in the petty bickering. They weren't that good.

The universe is infinitely smaller, due to the idea of scaling being all about one's perception, and the multiverse is infinitely bigger, because it must be.

If the multiverse is not infinite, please tell me what it is contained in? We live in 3 dimensions, and we learn in this 3rd dimension that everything exists in relation to everything else. What's at the edge of the universe? An eggshell? Some kind of void? What the hell is a void? A vast area of emptiness. Oh ok, how far is the void, and what's on the other side, and what is it contained in?

"It's turtles all the way down"

One recent version appears in Stephen Hawking's 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise." The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, "What is the tortoise standing on?" "You're very clever, young man, very clever," said the old lady. "But it's turtles all the way down!"[1]

By the way, keep telling yourselves you are smart, but the best way to obtain knowledge is to admit we know nothing. I've read the thing about us having a limited capacity to gain knowledge, like it is finite, but it didn't account for technological enhancement of our species, trans-dimensional travel, AI contributions, looking at infinitely smaller spaces, time-travel, and so on.

How can you say knowledge is finite if the multiverse is potentially infinite? Sure, with warp drives we could never reach the edge of the universe, but that's much different than saying that the knowledge we can obtain in its totality is finite. A singularity may occur but that doesn't stop what we can obtain.

Good talk fellas, this is fun. I like how supportive and encouraging you all are of the quest for knowledge and growth in each other. Really smart, so clever of you to bicker about unicorns in a sock drawer. Haha. I love jokes.

By Will (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God"

Prove it, teabaggie.

@ #1735
"... why did you ask me to search drawers when I asked you where the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers is"

As I made no such request, I need provide no response to a request I did not make.

Didn't think you could prove it, teabaggie. You've refused to even try before, and this time was no exception.

You just accept like the True Believer you really are that it is true, without evidence or even logical thought.

And why? Because despite knowing your god does not exist, you can fool yourself into believing it anyway and drown out the terror your death cult instilled in you to stop you thinking.

“… why did you ask me to search drawers when I asked you where the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers is”

As I made no such request,

Liar:

#1715 John Seal
Baltimore
February 19, 2017

@ #1711
“… you can give me ANY evidence for unicorns in sock drawers. Those drawers don’t even have to be YOURS …”

Feel free to search the drawers of whomsoever you wish in search of whatsoever your fancy might be.

"Didn’t think you could prove it ..."

... chuckling ... Prove? Prove what? Prove "it"?

You are an entertaining fellow, I will agree about that.

Yes, I knew you couldn't prove it. And I could've guessed you would edit out all context to pretend that your ignorance is believable.

Just like your ignorance of science really.

And this is why I'm VERY CLEAR on this: where is the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers?

Since you're going to be faking "reasons" for ignorance, and we're going nowhere otherwise, we're back to where is the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers I've been waiting for a week for, teabaggie?

@ #1739
"... Feel free to search the drawers of whomsoever you wish in search of whatsoever your fancy might be."

That was not a request, that was permission.

ESL can be a burden, I'm sure.

@ #1742
"... where is the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers I’ve been waiting for a week for ..."

In re evidence for sock drawer unicorns, unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I made no claim about unicorns.

As a result, I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Ah, lying again, teabaggie. Not a surprise. Deception is all you're here for.

And it's all you need to be a believer in christ, because it doesn't matter what sort of a shitbag you are, all you have to do is BELIEVE!!!!

Sad.

@ #1742
“… where is the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers I’ve been waiting for a week for …”

This one got tagged with a number. Why did you leave it off the other one? Because you're avoiding reality again.

Just like you're avoiding telling me where the evidence you have for unicorns in the sock drawer is.

"that was permission."

Why were you giving me permission to look through drawers when I asked you about the evidence you have for unicorns in sock drawers?

@ #1745
“… lying again …”

No lying HERE, but if you wish to find statements in this thread known to be false to the poster when they were posted, I do have a few documented examples

................................................

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

................................................

As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it appropriate to establish this fact.

Now we get to #681,
................................................
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
................................................
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”

................................................

You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
................................................
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
................................................
I’ve identified multiple false statements known false when they were posted.

................................................

Feel free to return to these posts to examine the evidence.
It’s all there.

They are examples of evidence .
................................................

Do you plan to provide any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Are you keeping the evidence in your sock drawer?

@ #1745
"... it doesn’t matter what sort of a shitbag you are ..."

Would this be another your scientific insights?
LOL!

@ #1745
“… lying again …”

No lying HERE,

Well, apart from the cutnpaste of the same tired old bullshit (see earlier for the evidence it's a pack of lies), this is a really simple to prove lie.

Check out who said this and whether it's true.

“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

“that was permission.”

Why were you giving me permission to look through drawers when I asked you about the evidence you have for unicorns in sock drawers?

Are you keeping the evidence in your sock drawer?

@ #1748
"... I asked you about the evidence you have for unicorns in sock drawers?"

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1752
“Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?”

That's a good question.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?

i never asked you to repeat whatever claims you made on unicorns. Only want to know where your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is.

Why were you giving me permission to look through drawers when I asked you about the evidence you have for unicorns in sock drawers?

Are you keeping the evidence in your sock drawer?

Kitchen drawers?

"That’s a good question."

Then answer it: where your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is.

Why were you giving me permission to look through drawers when I asked you about the evidence you have for unicorns in sock drawers?

@ #1756
"... Only want to know where your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1757
"... where your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

I only asked where your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is.

I also want to know why were you giving me permission to look through drawers when I asked you about the evidence you have for unicorns in sock drawers.

@ #1760
"I only asked where your evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is."

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need provide no evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Oops you’re right, my bad. I meant the multiverse is infinite. But actually the universe is also infinite.

As any smart person knows. there are infinite real numbers.

However, there are also infinite numbers ending with decimals between each whole number.

1-2-3 or 1, 1.1, 1.11, 1.112 you know what decimals are.

And I made several comments preceding that last one, lost in the petty bickering. They weren’t that good.

The universe is infinitely smaller, due to the idea of scaling being all about one’s perception, and the multiverse is infinitely bigger, because it must be.

If the multiverse is not infinite, please tell me what it is contained in? We live in 3 dimensions, and we learn in this 3rd dimension that everything exists in relation to everything else. What’s at the edge of the universe? An eggshell? Some kind of void? What the hell is a void? A vast area of emptiness. Oh ok, how far is the void, and what’s on the other side, and what is it contained in?

“It’s turtles all the way down”

One recent version appears in Stephen Hawking’s 1988 book A Brief History of Time, which starts:

A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the center of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy. At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.” The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?” “You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”[1]

By the way, keep telling yourselves you are smart, but the best way to obtain knowledge is to admit we know nothing. I’ve read the thing about us having a limited capacity to gain knowledge, like it is finite, but it didn’t account for technological enhancement of our species, trans-dimensional travel, AI contributions, looking at infinitely smaller spaces, time-travel, and so on.

How can you say knowledge is finite if the multiverse is potentially infinite? Sure, with warp drives we could never reach the edge of the universe, but that’s much different than saying that the knowledge we can obtain in its totality is finite. A singularity may occur but that doesn’t stop what we can obtain.

Good talk fellas, this is fun. I like how supportive and encouraging you all are of the quest for knowledge and growth in each other. Really smart, so clever of you to bicker about unicorns in a sock drawer. Haha. I love jokes.

Never asked you to repeat your claims about unicorns.

@ #1752
"... apart from the cutnpaste of the same tired old bullshit ..."

You are mistaken.

All the data in #1749 is accurate.

"All the data in #1749 is accurate."

No, that's what you're relying on people to accept because it's too much effort to trawl through your bullshit to find the truth.

But still waiting to hear where this evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is.

@ #1762
"Never asked you to repeat your claims about unicorns."

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I cannot repeat the the claims I have not made.

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"You are mistaken."

No I'm not.

And still waiting to hear why you gave me permission to search drawers when I asked you where the evidence for unicorns in sock drawers was.

And I STILL never asked you to repeat your claims about unicorns.

Just want you to say where this evidence for unicorns in drawers IS.

@ #1764
"But still waiting to hear where this evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is."

You'll need to be patient, for as I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need provide no evidence for claims I have not made.

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@#1767
"And I STILL never asked you to repeat your claims about unicorns.'

And as I have not made claims about unicorns, I STILL am unable to repeat the claims I have not made.

"“But still waiting to hear where this evidence for unicorns in your sock drawer is.”

You’ll need to be patient,"

So why the delay in answering? Trying to gather up more evidence????

Are you waiting to check your sock drawers again, teabaggie?

@ #1770
"... Trying to gather up more evidence????"

... smiling ... evidence for what?

Are you trying to clean up evidence in your sock drawer for the unicorns in there?

@ #1773
"Are you trying to clean up evidence in your sock drawer for the unicorns in there"

Why do you think there are unicorns in a sock drawer?

So "smiling" is your evidence for unicorns in sock drawers???

How does giving me permission to search drawers help me find that evidence you were telling me to be patient for?

Teabaggie, you're making even less sense than usual!

"Why do you think there are unicorns in a sock drawer?"

Are you saying that you think there are unicorns in a sock drawer, and that I have to be patient while you search them all?

ARE YOU GUYS FLAMEBOTS OR SOMETHING?

GET A LIFE, GO OUTSIDE, SPEND ALL DAY JACKING THREADS FLAMING? FOR WHAT?

Because you are anger addicts with low self-esteem seeking validation, perhaps. How would I know, I'm not smart!

@ #1776
"So “smiling” is your evidence for unicorns in sock drawers???"

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Oh, and pro tip for you: you don't have to end a rhetorical question with a question mark. Either a full stop or an exclamation mark.

So are you tying your response of "Smiling" to some reason why unicorns are in sock drawers? Where does this evidence prove unicorns are in sock drawers?

@ #1778

"ARE YOU GUYS FLAMEBOTS OR SOMETHING?"

More along the something line.

Will why the fuck are you shouting?

Go outside and breathe some fresh air and stop refreshing a web page and calm down.

If you want to get angry at someone, blame Ethan.

@ #1780
"... Where does this evidence prove unicorns are in sock drawers?"

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

This would be in contrast to your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1778

Will, you'll need to excuse Mr. "Will why the fuck are you shouting?"

He gets excited sometimes.

But I haven't asked you to repeat your claims about unicorns, teabaggie. Get back on the subject, please.

Where is this evidence for unicorns living in sock drawers? If you need time to collect it, then take some time off and do so.

"... Where is this evidence for unicorns living in sock drawers? ..."

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

This would be in contrast to your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Very scientific, teabaggie. And more coherent than your usual ranting.

Pity it was off topic when you've made such a hash out of things being "on topic" when you can't handle the questioning.

Like, for example, saying you aren't making a claim about unicorns, when all you are being asked is where the evidence you have for unicorns living in sock drawers is.

@ #1787
"... all you are being asked is where the evidence you have for unicorns living in sock drawers is"

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

This would be in contrast to your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Yeah, still avoiding it. Where is your evidence for unicorns in sock drawers, teabaggie?

@ #1789
"... Where is your evidence for unicorns in sock drawers ..."

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

This would be in contrast to your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"Where is your evidence that unicorns are in your sock drawer?"

It's in his sock drawer, silly. Where is it, LOL. C'mon.

THis is fun although I probably don't refresh nearly enough to witness all the magic. I didn't know this thread was thick with insanity when I first posted. Good timez

By Will (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by John (not verified)

"Good timez"

You betcha! It doesn't get better than this!

By John (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Will (not verified)

I guess the best way to find out if God is real is to end your life and see if you meet him. Other than that, this thread should have ended. You can't prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End.

That's why conspiracy theories are so fun, they are nearly impossible to disprove. Aliens might have had interspecies interrelations with your Mom. Nobody can disprove that. I think it is unlikely though. Aliens are smart and your mom is probably not even hot anymore like she used to be.

By will heine (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by John (not verified)

For any sane human being, this would be an easy question to answer if they were in your place and had made your posts to date.

Quite why you are incapable of managing something any human above the age of 4 could manage is a mystery.

But you will still fail to answer this really easy to answer question.

Where is your evidence that unicorns are in your sock drawer?

@ #1791
"Where is your evidence that unicorns are in your sock drawer?"

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about unicorns.

I need not provide any evidence for a claim I did not make.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Will,

A word to the wise, though. Wow can get a mite testy at times, so don't be upset at some of his more florid expositions.

John

I posted this in the wrong spot.

I guess the best way to find out if God is real is to end your life and see if you meet him. Other than that, this thread should have ended. You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End.

That’s why conspiracy theories are so fun, they are nearly impossible to disprove. Aliens might have had interspecies interrelations with your Mom. Nobody can disprove that. I think it is unlikely though. Aliens are smart and your mom is probably not even hot anymore like she used to be.

I can only conclude that this is an AI experiment that attempts to duplicate an actual conversation between two teenagers being caught in a flamewar, but it seems to have glitched on unicorns and teabags and post #347.

Probably reboot it and see if you get better results.

Unicorns go in the unicorn drawer anyway, your socks probably smell like unicorn poop, which smells like gummi-berries.

"I guess the best way to find out if God is real is to end your life and see if you meet him. "

That does run the risk of making a faulty assumption. Of course, if you do, and you did, you still wouldn't have any regrets.

"Of course, if you do, and you did, you still wouldn’t have any regrets."

Actually I tried it, and I did regret it, a little. God gets mad when you destroy its creations. Well, not mad, just like he kinda tells you that its #FAIL. And sends you back to repeat your life, yada yada forever and ever whatever.

But I can't prove that to you, also don't care to or need to. Do you man!

This is kind of a funny thing. Wow is kind of an abrasive argumentative sort, John seems to be enjoying himself. I'm just over here trolling at this point. But do carry on. I ran out of my $0.02

@ #1800
"But I can’t prove that to you, also don’t care to or need to. Do you man!"

Cool

" I ran out of my $0.02"
Wonder what you would do with a dollar.. LOL

By Ragtag Media (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

That’s a suitable wrap-up.

"You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End."

Really?

Well that's a lie. Period.

<blockquoteProof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition;

And it's been proven that all of the currently believed and previously believed gods were nonexistent.

The End.

“You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End.”

Really?

Well that’s a lie. Period.

<blockquoteProof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition;

And it’s been proven that all of the currently believed and previously believed gods were nonexistent.

...Ok, so you said nothing can be disproven (proven to not exist), then you stated how truths are upheld with sufficient evidence. Those are 2 different things.

It's been proven that ALL the current and previous gods did not exist?

REALLY? How? And in what plane of existence?

WOW you actually aren't as smart as you tell yourself you are. YOu aren't even at the level where you can debate accurately. Probably an emotional teen whose parents pay for him to sit at his computer and troll all day. DOn't you have Minecraft?

By Will (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End."

Really?

Well that's a lie. Period.

Proof (truth), argument or sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition;

And it's been proven that all of the currently believed and previously believed gods were nonexistent.

The End.

It's also a lie logically.

E.g. There is a triangle with four right angles in it.

It doesn't exist, that triangle.

So, teabaggie, You've claimed you haven't made a claim about unicorns, but that to find the evidence you have on unicorns in your sock drawer, I have to either be patient and wait while you go off on a tangent (possibly so you can hide the evidence against any claim you made earlier) or I can go look for evidence for unicorns by looking for evidence for them in drawers.

Well, what we take from that is that you find evidence of supernatural entities hiding in sock drawers by the scientific method of "looking for them" and testing their existence against the evidence for it.

So, teabaggie, we’ve had your claimed god proved wrong (and I guess you were pissed off to find out that it was the same god as the jews and muslims, eh?), you’ve said you have no god, you’ve sockpuppeted – AGAIN – you’ve not proven any of your claims, you have now changed them to absolute claims to “you think”, which is not a truth claim therefore not a proof science can’t, just an assertion you think it can’t, and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.

@ #1
“…If god has any effect on this reality, it can be found by scientific inquiry, and therefore it can be used to prove god exists *if he does*. Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist.”

...................................

@ #1806
““You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End.”
Really?
Well that’s a lie. Period. …”

Correct, teabaggie. You're getting there. It's taken 1800 posts to get even this tiny step to realtiy, but you've done that toddler step now. Just keep working at it.

Science also avoids contradictions ...

Well, no, contradictions indicate an error in the argument, tebaggie.

But you're now running off at irrelevant tangents. Looks like your next step to reality will be taken somewhere in the mid to late 3000s.

Sad.

@ #1809
“…your claimed god proved wrong …”

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about God.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ 1813
"Well, no, contradictions indicate an error in the argument ..."

Res ipsa loquitor.

Yes, I planned and executed it, tebaggie. See 1809. You must have read it since you quoted it.

Alcohol poisoning again, hmm? Or just old timers' disease?

Unlike your evidence for your claims, I provide it.

@1815. Yup. So clean up your act, teabaggie

Me? I can point to dictionaries:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood

@ #1809
“… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

@ #1816
"Alcohol poisoning again, hmm? Or just old timers’ disease?"

... sipping my coffee ... smiling ... And the eloquence resumes.

Good. So my proof of science being able to prove the existence of god passes unopposed.

@ #1816
"... your evidence for your claims ..."

To what claims are you referring?

@ #1822
"... So my proof of science being able to prove the existence of god passes unopposed."

To what proof are you referring?

Any chance of you posting it?

And 1808 also stands unopposed and accepted. Some progress, even if you ignore it, teabaggie.

@ #1825

"... 1808 also stands unopposed ..."

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

Wrong again.

Yeah, like I said, 1808, like 1809, has been accepted. Nobody has pointed out an error in either.

@ #1827
"Yeah, like I said, 1808, like 1809, has been accepted. Nobody has pointed out an error in either."

No one need comment on nonsense.

... and you knew the suggestion that anyone should do so was false when you posted it

"Wrong again."

sniggering as you prove yourself immune to reality yet again.

@ #1829

"sniggering ..."

Yes, I like that distinction between you and me.

I chuckle, you snigger.

"No one need comment on nonsense."

Oh, thanks for the permission, then. Or should I not have commented on your nonsense, teabaggie?

Well, thanks for the permission.

Good, now we've sorted that out, there is still no argument against the comments 1808 and 1809 so they remain accepted.

@ #1831
"... should I not have commented on your nonsense ..."

To what are you referring?

"Yes, I like that distinction between you and me."

What difference? You proclaim you're chuckling while I point out you're sniggering?

Sure, that's a difference. You want to see yourself in the best possible light. Youre not really the best source for reality, are you, tebaggie.

So in 1808 we have accepted that we can look for evidence of supenatural creatures and in 1809 we have accepted we can extend that to looking for evidence of god. It's been done ever since we thought up god as an explanation and excuse.

So with evidence we can use science to prove whether the hypothesis is true or not, and even the supernatural will leave evidence of their existence.

@ #1831
" ... no argument against the comments 1808 and 1809 ..."

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn't notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

@ #1834
"So in 1808 we have accepted that we can look for evidence of supenatural creatures and in 1809 we have accepted we can extend that to looking for evidence of god. It’s been done ever since we thought up god as an explanation and excuse."

Both of these claims of yours are without warrant.

@ #1834
"... So with evidence we can use science to prove whether the hypothesis is true or not, and even the supernatural will leave evidence of their existence."

You may be challenged if you introduce your unicorns as evidence.

At least you would be if you were claiming that yours was scientific evidence.

Nobody knows what you mean there, teabaggie.

So the contents of 1808 and 1809 remain uncontested.

@ #1838
"... the contents of 1808 and 1809 remain uncontested"

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Yeah, still nonsense there, tebaggie. Nothing about the arguments being false for any reason.

They remain uncontested and accepted.

@ #1840
".. They remain uncontested and accepted."

If you are referring to your posts #1808 & #1809 ...

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Here they are again, with a little clean up.

So, teabaggie, we’ve had your claimed god proved wrong (and I guess you were pissed off to find out that it was the same god as the jews and muslims, eh?), you’ve said you have no god you’ve not proven any of your claims, you have now changed them from absolute claims to “you think”, which is not a truth claim therefore not a proof science can’t, just an assertion you think it can’t, and we have science can because any act of god that affects this earth can be investigated and prove that god exists.

You’ve claimed you haven’t made a claim about unicorns, but that to find the evidence you have on unicorns in your sock drawer, I have to either be patient and wait while you go off on a tangent (possibly so you can hide the evidence against any claim you made earlier) or I can go look for evidence for unicorns by looking for evidence for them in drawers.

Well, what we take from that is that you find evidence of supernatural entities hiding in sock drawers by the scientific method of “looking for them” and testing their existence against the evidence for it.

@ #1842
“…your claimed god proved wrong …”

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about God.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1842
“…you’ve said you have no god …”

Unlike your claim that Science can prove the existence of God, I did not make any claim about God.

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1843
“… to find the evidence you have on unicorns in your sock drawer …”

As I have not made any claims about unicorns, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

This would be in contrast to your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1844
"... you find evidence of supernatural entities hiding in sock drawers ..."

As I have not made any claims about supernatural entities hiding in sock drawers, I need not comment on evidence for claims I have not made.

This would be in contrast to your claim that Science can prove the existence of God. Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

The posts made are right htere for you to see, teabaggie. But your avoidance of any actual content showing an error in my claims is telling me that you have nothing other than your blind faith in a nonexistent god.

We can look for evidence, evidence can be tested scientifically, and even in the case of unicorns as supernatural creatures not even you have a predisposed indoctrination bias to believe in, the evidence can still be investigated.

So, despite your unreasoned denial of the argument's validity, science can prove the existence of god.

Your only problem is that its proven gods that don't exist do not, in fact, exist. Hence your unreasoned insistence that the proof that science can prove the existence of god is not there.

@ #1849
“.. The posts made are right htere for you to see ....”

If you are referring to your posts #1808 & #1809 …

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

@ #1849
"... the evidence can still be investigated ..."

To what evidence are you referring?

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

See also the difference between science and religion here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6j8Babr_n4w

The scientist will accept evidence and expects evidence to be available. The religious one refutes all evidence can change their mind.

Teabaggie is the ken ham religiotard infesting this thread.
I'm the bill bye in this scenario.

See here for Brian Dalton (an ex-Mormon now atheist because of the evidence against the Mormon god) making the same evidential claim about science and the proof of god's existence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrVY1LMuZE

@#1854
"... the ken ham religiotard infesting this thread ..."

The eloquence flows on.

See here for Brian Dalton (an ex-Mormon now atheist because of the evidence against the Mormon god) making the same evidential claim about science and the proof of god's existence

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgrVY1LMuZE

And every single case of a claimed miracle, every prayer to god to do something, every claim of conversion or revelation is a religious person's acceptance that, yes, science can prove the existence of god.

So we are born out of nothing (which, by the way, is AGAINST the current theory of conservation of matter and energy in the universe, i.e. outside current understanding).

Is that not evidence enough? We were born out of nothing, we appear to cease to exist, and then we are....? Born out of nothing again? Why not right? It happened the first time. Arguing against reincarnation is arguing FOR creation, in a way.

Creationism or Reincarnation both seem like solid forces at work. Maybe I don't believe in God, maybe the evidence really is for intelligent design.

It's hard to care anymore, what with this kid talking about teabagging like a closet homosexual that wants to envision balls in his mouth every time he posts, and getting hung up on unicorns. Worthless fucking thread this is, ruined by a total DB who can't WOW anyone.

By Will (not verified) on 19 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

@ #1859

Claims and assertions are not evidence.

I thought you knew that.

re 1858

Yes, that is what happened. I note no claim about it, though, so I suppose what you must mean is that gods have been disproved by science. But it could have, and was expected to, prove the existence of god.

It just failed to do so, part of the vast amount of evidence that proves the christian god doesn't exist. Just like there is vast amounts of evidence that prove the Abramamic OT god does not exist. Not that it's limited to just those. The vast amount of evidence against the gods of Rome, Egypt, South America, Asia and other places have either proven that these gods don't exist, or so many people stopped believing in these myths that we don't even think of them as gods and don't need to test for their existence.

You can go look up for any claim of miracle. I don't have to list them all, you can find them yourself. And you've shown one, the heart patient test, was already stated.

1859 shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science.

@ #1861
"... But it could have, and was expected to, prove the existence of god ..."

It did not so, and wishful thinking on your part will not change that.

You introduced the reference to Professor Dawkins @ #1216. I'm merely pointing out that he contradicts you.

R. Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

So, how do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

And Bill Nye, Brian Dalton, and Richard Dawkins all have made a well supported case that science can prove the existence of god and expect that to be possible if any god actually existed.

I point you to them to see the arguments and support they give for the answer that they have to the question of this thread "Can science prove the existence of god". And the answer is "Yes, it can".

Who is wishing? Nobody. But why do you make that claim, teabaggie?

Because you can't knock down my proofs so you construct a strawman and poison the well.

That you have to resort to such deceptive practices is yet more evidence you have nothing except your blind faith and the indoctrination of your death cult to drive you to refuse to see what's placed in front of you.

So sad, teabaggie. So terribly transparent.

@ #1862
"1859 shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science."

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

So we are born out of nothing

No we aren't will. Before making such dumbass claims, read up on what science says, not what your creationist friends tell you science says.

Ask your mum or dad where you came from. It may be time for them to tell you.

we appear to cease to exist

Again another non-reality claim. Pop down to your local cemetery and ask the pastor what is in those graves. Wait for a funeral and watch what happens to the person who you claims doesn't exist any more.

this kid talking about teabagging

And a twofer lie here!

Based on nothing but what strawman you want to project to protect your unreason fromreality, you come up with a lie that takes just 5 words to make two false claims!

Sorry, will, you need to go educate yourself. And before that can become fruitful, you need to learn what reality says, and use your eyes. When you ignore them, you can't actually learn anything new.

It's funny because, you are not smart, you are actually just freaking out. GOod luck with that, kiddo. God or not, love is the important thing, like that man who was the son of God told us. Or the Jews. Or Muhammed or Buddha or any of those other folks you probably think are stupid. Seriously you compulsively spend all day replying defensively to threads that essentially have no merit at this point. Maybe move on to a topic that is more tangible and don't let your identity ride on defending your assertions on this thread. There are some good kitty blogs out there. They might help you feel better.

Toodaloo!

Peace John!

By will (not verified) on 20 Feb 2017 #permalink

In reply to by Wow (not verified)

"You appealed to popularity "

Wrong.

Oh by the way, you did that too. Another double standard from you.

So sad, teabaggie. With such empty claims in the place of logical coherent argument, the claims in 1808 and 1809 stand without blemish or logical refutation.

@ #1865
"... I point you to them to see the arguments and support they give for the answer that they have to the question of this thread “Can science prove the existence of god” ..."

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity. (ref @ #1867)

R. Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

So, how do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1869
" “You appealed to popularity ”

Wrong...."

@ #1862
“1859 shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science.”

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

You're wrong again

Well, at least it;s clear why will here turned up to complain about the length of the thread.

He wanted to shut out the voices that say that science can prove or disprove god's existence, because he too is terrified by the scare stories indoctrinated into him by whoever made up those asinine claims about coming from nothing and going to nothing.

The weird thing about that, though, for the christians, is that their benediction over the dead is "Ashes to ashes, dust to dust".

Mind you, believing things against their own religion's text is part and parcel of being a believer and why there are so many goddamned versions of the same "god": everyone picks and chooses which bits of the "holy text" that some scammer or grifter made up and peddled in the distant past, meaning for every interpretation of which bits are "valid" or not means yet another sect splitting off.

Heck, it's not like they're really clued up on their arguments at the best of times. For example, the "argument" against evolution is "I didn't come from no monkey!" when according to what they thought was true, we came from mud.

They never really got the connection there, because religion means jettisoning thinking and reason and even reality when inconvenient to what they want to be true.

@ #1872

Off-topic

"You appealed to popularity"

No I didn't!

I pointed to evidence that most people think that science can prove the existence of god. I didn't call it proof that science can prove the existence of god.

Oh, sucks to be you, teabaggie, having to clutch at those straws. ESPECIALLY after you tried the argumentum ad populum, where you wanted to show that as actual proof I was wrong.

@ #1874
" “You appealed to popularity”

No I didn’t! ..."

@ #1862
“1859 shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science.”

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

You’re wrong again

So, again, with only red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument.

@ #1874
"... I pointed to evidence that most people think that science can prove the existence of god ..."

What most people think is not evidence.

Nope, still not an argument from popularity, teabaggie. That you can't read anything more than the quotemined sections and never read the rest of it indicate both that all you're doing is copying the same debunked argument and that you have no counter to the facts stated.

Oh, does it burn, teabaggie? LOL!

@ #1876
"... no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid ..."

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

@ #1878

"... still not an argument from popularity ..."

@ #1862
“1859 shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science.”

You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

You’re wrong again

"What most people think is not evidence."

Yes it is.

Polling is evidence. Polls are done all the time. It's evidence.

Your problem seems to be manifold.

You don't know what science is.
You don't know what logic is.
You don't know how to construct or deconstruct a logical argument.
You don't know what proof is.
You don't know what evidence is.

That's a massive problem for you if you were not being entirely deceptive and dishonest, teabaggie.

Your continued posting despite these gaping holes in your knowledge without remediation indicate the dishonesty of you.

Oh, and remember, teabaggie, you were appealing to what people think god is for your definition of god.

But there's that double standard you cuddle to your breast rising up again, eh?

LOL!

"You appealed to popularity or the fact that many people do something as an attempted form of validation"

Can you prove that claim, teabaggie? No, of course not, because that's a lie, tebaggie.

@ #1881
“What most people think is not evidence.”
Yes it is. ..."

Ah, back to contradiction in lieu of argument.

OK.

@ #1883
“… that’s a lie …”

No lie HERE ...

If, however you wish to find statements in this thread known to be false to the poster when they were posted ...
------------------------------------------------

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

------------------------------------------------

As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it prudent to establish this fact.

Now we get to #681,
------------------------------------------------
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
------------------------------------------------
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
------------------------------------------------
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
------------------------------------------------
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is the latest example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
------------------------------------------------
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
------------------------------------------------
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence.
It’s all there.
------------------------------------------------

Do you plan to provide any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

Yup, more lies from you, teabaggie.

Just like the other claims you made and now back off and ignore.

But copypasting that same tired debunked old bullshit is some sort of internet tourettes for you, isn't it. An act undertaken with zero intelligence or honesty.

Sad.

And when I post the massive list of oyur lies,teabaggie, you whine about how I'm trying to hide accusations against me in a wallotext.

Again, another double standard you hold as your cherished own possession.

Aaaaawwww. Like a comfort blanket, isn't it, teabaggie.

@ #1886
"... debunked ..."

Debunked? Really?

Are you claiming that @ #708 you did NOT post “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”

If you go to #708, you'll discover that my claim is accurate.

"@ #1881
“What most people think is not evidence.”
Yes it is. …”

Ah, back to contradiction in lieu of argument."

Ah back to quotemining and elision to pretend you have a point.

Sad.

@ #1886
“… debunked …”

Debunked? Really?

Are you claiming that @ #710 you did NOT post
--------------------------------------------------------------------
“No kidding? In what post did I claim that science is incapable of measuring all god interactions with reality.”

#681 still.

Posting so much bollocks you don’t know what you just asked 5sec ago?
---------------------------------------------------------------

If you go to #710, you’ll discover that my claim is accurate.

@ #1886
“… debunked …”

Debunked? Really?

Ah, yes, more removing of reality you don't want to see and then a content free whine.

Who does that work on except the already indoctrinated, teabaggie? I know it works in your cult's circles, but outside that, does anyone actually take it as reason?

@ #1886
“… debunked …”

Debunked? Really?

Ah, yes, more removing of reality you don't want to see and then a content free whine.

Who does that work on except the already indoctrinated, teabaggie? I know it works in your cult's circles, but outside that, does anyone actually take it as reason?

@ #1889
Just a reminder, what most people think is not evidence.

Since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument.

Just a reminder, that claim is bollocks, tebaggie. What people think is evidence. At the very least evidence of what most people think.

I know you don't understand, but grown ups do. We've had education, *and learned from it*.

@ #1892
"... in your cult’s circles ...."

My cult? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a cult.

Science works best when it’s practiced honestly; those who knowingly post false statements are commonly found out, as you have found out, comments #708 & #710 being examples. Cherry-picking the data, or intentionally misquoting others is another type of Scientific Dishonesty, comment #1327 is an example.

A central property of Science is falsifiability. Although a scientific theory can be disproved, a scientific theory cannot be proved. Every genuinely scientific claim is capable of being proven false, at least in principle. The reference is available at #1449. So, when someone posts, as was done in #1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …” it shows that they don’t “get” Science.

Science also avoids contradictions. You’re also the one who claims at #409 that Science can prove the existence of God, although you also claim that Science has already proved that God is nonexistent #1409. If as claimed at #1409, “… science HAS proven your god nonexistent!”, the event has already occurred.
If the event has already occurred, a contradicting event as claimed at #402, “… Science can prove god exists” in either the preset or the future cannot occur.
One might also contrast other sentiments expresssed
@ #1, “… Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist” with those posted
@ #1806 [quoting another], “ “You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End.”
Really?
Well that’s a lie. Period. …”

In a fundamental sense, people like that don’t know what Science is about. People who post such nonsense are Scientific Illiterates.

Oh, and a reminder: 1893 is no defence against the claim that he's elided the posts' content to make up his whine as being "evidenced" when that evidence is manufactured.

Because the accusation is true.

"@ #1892
“… in your cult’s circles ….”

My cult?"

Yes, your cult. The christian cult. The one that insists that your god is real and only your god is real, and can't see any difference from "god" and "your god".

That cult.

The one that indocrinated you and scared you so shitless that you're willing to undertake any deception and dishonesty to retain the hope that nobody will notice you know god doesn't exist.

@ #1895
"... What people think is evidence...."

That is a mistake. You appealed (@ #1862 “... shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science.”) to the fact that many people think something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

You're wrong again

One might also contrast other sentiments expresssed
@ #1, “… Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist” with those posted
@ #1806 [quoting another], “ “You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End.”
Really?
Well that’s a lie. Period.

One might.

You haven't, though. Just posted it up and let everyone else think it is somehow connected to your follow up

In a fundamental sense, people like that don’t know what Science is about.

when there has been no claim that connects the two parts.

BUSTED, teabaggie!

@ #1897
"... Because the accusation is true."

What accusation of yours about me are you referring to?

@ #1898
"... your cult. The christian cult. ..."

Yet another unwarranted claim.

@ #1895
“… What people think is evidence….”

That is a mistake.

Oh, right, you don't know what mistake means either.

Or are you thinking that eliding out the actual post behind ellipses is a mistake? It's really hard to tell, and you refuse to accept any interpretation of words you post in meaningless blather.

"“… your cult. The christian cult. …”

Yet another unwarranted claim."

Another unsupported and meaningless assertion.

Sad.

@ #1897
“[Oh, and a reminder: 1893 is no defence against the claim that he’s elided the posts’ content to make up his whine as being “evidenced” when that evidence is manufactured.]

Because the accusation is true.”

@ #1900

" @ #1, “… Nothing can prove it if god doesn’t exist”
@ #1806 [quoting another], “ “You can’t prove whether something does not exist. At all. Period. The End.”
Really?
Well that’s a lie. Period. …”

Your original claim (Nothing can prove it [the existence of God] if god doesn’t exist), is contradicted by your subsequent assertion that the individal (Will) who posted “You can’t prove whether something does not exist." was lying.

Science doesn't do contradictions much.
Unlike certain people.

@ #1905
"... that evidence is manufactured ..."

What evidence do you contest? Specify the post number, explain why you disagree, and I'll respond.

Until then, the evidence stands as posted.

Your original claim

Nothing can prove it [the existence of God] if god doesn’t exist),

is contradicted by your subsequent assertion that the individal (Will) who posted

“You can’t prove whether something does not exist.”

was lying.

How?

All I see is bare assertion, teabaggie. "Science doesn't do contradictions" is factually wrong as has been pointed out to you before, but even taking what you might have meant from it, it still doesn't apply here, since there is no contradictions, only different claims by different people.

See, this is a problem you have. You REALLY don't understand logic and refuse to learn, as eric found out PDQ when he tried to talk with you and then gave up as a lost cause for rationality.

@ #1907
"Glad to see you’re using what most people think as proof of your claims ..."

I don't mind what people think as proof of my claims, I'm just pleased they accept as proved the claims I make.

"@ #1905
“… that evidence is manufactured …”

What evidence do you contest?"

What evidence are you talking about?

@ #1909
"... All I see is bare assertion ..."

Then you've overlooked comments #1 & #1806. They are evidence. You posted the comments. The comments are contradictory.

Science doesn’t do contradictions much.
Unlike certain people

I don’t mind what people think as proof of my claims

And there's the double standard. You don't mind using argumentum ad populum yourself, but will assert it and berate its use elsewhere.

@ #1912

" “@ #1905
“… that evidence is manufactured …”
What evidence do you contest?”
What evidence are you talking about?“

LOL! I didn't THINK you could present any. Now we know you haven't

"@ #1909
“… All I see is bare assertion …”

Then you’ve overlooked comments #1 & #1806."

I've not overlooked them, they were in 1909. Go look there for them.

That you had to delete them shows your deception and lack of proof to your claims of contradiction.

BUSTED!

"I didn’t THINK "

That is patently obvious.

Sad.

"...Now we know you haven’t"

I haven't what?

LOL!

@ #1913
"... double standard ..."

You appealed (@ #1862 “… shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science.”) to the fact that many people think something as an attempted form of validation. The flaw in this argument is that the popularity of an idea has absolutely no bearing on its validity.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/bandwagon

... chuckling ... Suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

And still there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument.

@ #1917
"... I haven’t what?
LOL!"

You haven't provided evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.

You appealed (@ #1862 “… shows that almost everyone thinks that god can be proved by science.”) to the fact that many people think something as an attempted form of validation.

Except that was not the case. I know because I posted 1862, I was there when I posted it. You are utterly mistaken on this and incoherent in your claims to support it.

Moreover you've claimed you don't mind using such arguments yourself. A rather blatant double standard to complain about it, even in unsupported conjecture about my post.

@ #1919
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

"@ #1917
“… I haven’t what?
LOL!”

You haven’t ..."

I haven't what???

ROFL!

@1922, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument.

@ #1924
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

@1925, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument.

@ #1926
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

@1927, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument

@ #1928
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

@1929, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument

@ #1930
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them,
for example #708 & #710 an willful misrepresentation, ( #1327), please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

"Will you ever provide proof to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?"

Logical proof is proof that is derived explicitly from its premises without exception. Logical proof is not the same as factual proof. In formal logic, a valid argument is an argument that is structured in such a way that if all it's premises are true, then it's conclusion then must also be true.

'Proof' has to come up to a standard, which varies according to the kind of case it is ('beyond a reasonable doubt' for some cases, or 'preponderance of the evidence' for others). Evidence is some fact that supports a theory.21 Oct 2014

So evidence to support the theory that science can prove the existence of god are the double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients.

The proofs of logical argument are right back at the beginning of this thread, teabaggie.

However you will continue to insist this does not exist and demand evidence under the presumption that it has not once been supplied, a massive deception you are wedded too.

@ #1932
"... Logical proof is not the same as factual proof ..."

The thread topic is "Can science prove the existence of God?", so stick to the facts.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #1933
"... So evidence to support the theory that science can prove the existence of god are the double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients ..."

And the results of those double-blind tests were, in the words of Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@1934.

BUSTED! As predicted in 1932:

"However you will continue to insist this does not exist and demand evidence under the presumption that it has not once been supplied, a massive deception you are wedded too."

LOL!

@ #1933
"‘Proof’ has to come up to a standard, which varies according to the kind of case it is ..."

From Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

@1937.

BUSTED! As predicted in 1932:

“However you will continue to insist this does not exist and demand evidence under the presumption that it has not once been supplied, a massive deception you are wedded too.”

LOL!

Since that is a red herring, the claim still stands, teabaggie.

Since that is a red herring, the claim (science can prove the existence of god) still stands, teabaggie.

Added that in because you seem so easily confused, teabaggie.

Your religion, however, doesn't favour reasoning, so it's quite understandable that your mental capacity is lacking.

@ #1940
"Since that is a red herring ..."

What are you referring to?

Do you plan to present evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"@ #1933
“‘Proof’ has to come up to a standard, which varies according to the kind of case it is …”

From Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”"

Correct. Evidence that science can prove god's existence.

Just find a definition of the one that exists, teabaggie.

"...you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God..."

Glad we agree, teabaggie!

ROFL!

"@ #1943
“… science can prove god’s existence”

In the absence of evidence?"

No, why would you claim that, teabaggie?!?!?

But science can be used to investigate the evidence of god's existence.

Do you want to provide some evidence of god's existence, teabaggie? Millions have tried, all have failed. Maybe you'll be the first!

LOL!

@ #1944
“…you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God…”

The honest quote is, "Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?"

The honest quote is not your quote.
Cherry-picking your data
Again

"Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grant2s], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

Yes, the templeton foundation is one who provided evidence of god's existence which was tested scientifically.

Unfortunately, the god they worship does not exist.

Do you want to provide some evidence for god's existence?

LOL

"@ #1944
“…you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God…”

The honest quote..."

Yes, we agree, it was an honest quote! We agree at last, teabaggie!

LOL!

@ #1950
"Yes, we agree, it was an honest quote! ..."

It just wasn't your quote.

"" “In the absence of evidence?”
No, why would you claim that …”

I didn’t,"

Yes you did. post (currently) 1843, to whit:

@ #1943
“… science can prove god’s existence”

In the absence of evidence?

"@ #1950
“Yes, we agree, it was an honest quote! …”

It just wasn’t your quote."

Whose quote was it, then, teabaggie???

@ #1952
Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

Yup.

Your point, teabaggie?

Well, since you haven't still managed to come up with any counter or problem with the proofs supplied, the claim that science can prove the existence of god remains solidly grounded in logic and reality.

@ #1955
"Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
Yup.
Your point ..."

That you have not yet provided, nor are ever likely to provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God.

You remember, the one you posted @ #347?

You do remember that claim, don't you?

@1955, but that is the proof. A scientific theory must be falsifiable. And the templeton foundation shows that gods' existence is a falsifiable claim and therefore scientific,.

Again, we come back to your remedial education problems. You are clearly asking a group of your fellow believers what argument to use and going with whatever feels right to all of you.

You appear to be demanding, yet again, proof of god before you accept that god's existence is a scientific hypothesis.

No mainstream religion insists on that, only the fundamentalist fringes of religious lunacy such as your christianity cult, teabaggie, take such a counterfactual standpoint. Truly you are the ISIS of the christian apologetics crowd.

"You do remember that claim, don’t you?"

Yes. Do you remember that it has been answered scores of times? You remember that, don't you?

You do remember your claim in 1260, teabaggie, don't you?

@ #1958
"... A scientific theory must be falsifiable. And the templeton foundation shows that gods’ existence is a falsifiable claim and therefore scientific ..."

The thread topic is "Can science prove the existence of God?", not "Is the existence of God a testable theory".

Wrong again

@ #1960
"You do remember your claim in 1260 ..."

Below is #1260
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
@ #1257
“… your copious lies …”

No lies HERE. But as for you, well, here is what is documented. Read on ….

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”

This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”
************************************************
As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it sensible to establish this fact.
And now we get to #681,
************************************************
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
************************************************
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
************************************************
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
************************************************
You’ve now been reduced to making multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.

Congratulations! I’m sure you’re proud of yourself.

Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mind to examine the evidence. We know that you’ll find.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?

************************
#347

” “You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God”

Yup. And proven it.”

*************************************************
Without evidence?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The thread topic is “Can science prove the existence of God?”, not “Is the existence of God a testable theory”.

And your point is missing again. A red herring. Since all you have are red herrings rather than logical argument, my claim that science can prove the existence of god stands.

@ #1959
"Yes.[remember that claim #347] Do you remember that it has been answered scores of times? ..."

Just not with evidence yet.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?

@#1926

And therein is your lie, tebaggie. Your lie about post 347.

@#1962

And therein is your lie, tebaggie. Your lie about post 347.

@ #965
"... Your lie about post 347"

Below is #347
—————————————————————————
—————————————————————————
"You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God"

Yup. And proven it.
—————————————————————————
—————————————————————————
No lie HERE ...

"“Yes.[remember that claim #347] Do you remember that it has been answered scores of times? …”

Just not with evidence yet."

Evidence of what, teabaggie?

"@ #965
“… Your lie about post 347”

Below is #347"

And above it is your lie about it, tebaggie.

"—————————————————————————
—————————————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God”

Yup. And proven it.
—————————————————————————
—————————————————————————
No lie HERE …"

Glad you agree that I was telling the truth, teabaggie, in post 347.

@ #1966

" @#1962
And therein is your lie ..."

No lies there either. If you want to contest something, identify the post, and explain why you disagree.

@ #1970
Your claim @ #347 Is what you've never provided evidence for.

Will you ever produce any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven the existence of God?

"@ #1966

” @#1962
And therein is your lie …”

No lies "

Yes lies.

@ #1969
"... And above it is your lie about it ..."

More nonsense.

"@ #1970
Your claim @ #347 Is what you’ve never provided evidence for"

I've provided plenty of evidence for it.

"@ #1969
“… And above it is your lie about it …”

More nonsense."

Yes, you were talking nonsense, teabaggie, we can agree on that.

@ #1973
“… Yes lies …”

No lies HERE ...

That said, if you wish to find statements in this thread known to be false to the poster when they were posted, there is this collection ...
------------------------------------------------

@ #708 you posted “#681
Posting so much bollocks you’re losing your place?”
This is in response to my post #701, “ “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
What post # was that?”

------------------------------------------------

As I had not made such a claim about Ethan, I thought it prudent to establish this fact.

Now we get to #681,
------------------------------------------------
“ “Proof please. This is YOUR claim. The burden of proof is on you”
Sure. If a tool is incapable of measuring all Y across domain A, it will also be incapable of measuring all Y across domain A+B
Your tool is Science.
Ethan’s post shows that your tool is inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world.
Your tool is therefor inadequate to enable humans to know everything about the natural world plus the supernatural world.
But you’ll just say that’s not true. “
------------------------------------------------
As we can all see, I did not claim @ #681 what you said @ #703 I claimed: “Hell you made the claim that Ethan showed that all god interactions are impossible for science to detect.”
------------------------------------------------
You may have been mistaken at #703 (as you are prone to making unsubstantiated claims), but @ #708 and #710 you had reread my post in order to “correctly” identify the one you referred to.
------------------------------------------------
As I pointed out @ #1336, your intentional misrepresentation @ #1327 of my comment @ #1324 is another example of you posting false statements you knew to be false when you posted them.
------------------------------------------------
I’ve identified these multiple false statements you knew were false when you made them.
------------------------------------------------
Feel free to return to these posts of yours and mine to examine the evidence.
It’s all there.
------------------------------------------------

Do you plan to provide any evidence to support your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"No lies HERE …

That said,"

You will now make up fake claims again as a desperate attempt to avoid reality.

As usual.

LOL!

@ #1975
"I’ve provided plenty of evidence for it."

Evidence for what?

@1977, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument

@ #1978
"You will now make up fake claims again ..."

No fake claims here. If you want to contest something, identify the post, and explain why you disagree.

@#1979

evidence for 347.

Duh.

Bit slow on the uptake today, aren't you?

LOL!

@ #1980
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them,
for example #708 & #710 an willful misrepresentation, ( #1327), please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

1981
"@ #1978
“You will now make up fake claims again …”

No fake claims here"

Where?

@#1983, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument

@ #1982
"... evidence for 347 ..."

#347 is a post. You claimed you ad some evidence to support your claim there.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?

"@ #1982
“… evidence for 347 …”

#347 is a post"

Correct. And we both agree that there is evidence for it.

@ #1987
" "#347 is a post”
Correct ..."

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?

"@#1987
... your claim @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?"

That claim isn't made by me in post 347.

This must be why you haven't accepted any evidence or proof that science can prove the existence of god.

@ #1985
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them,
for example #708 & #710 an willful misrepresentation, ( #1327), please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

@#1990, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument

@ #1989

"... That claim isn’t made by me in post 347"

@ #347 ...
------------------------------------------------------
"You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it."
------------------------------------------------------

@ #1991
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid …”

#1808 contained your musing about unicorns. It is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them,
for example #708 & #710 an willful misrepresentation, ( #1327), please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

"@ #1989

“… That claim isn’t made by me in post 347”
@ #347 …"

Yup, as you quoted, the claim you assert I made does not exist in there.

Sorry, teabaggie. FAIL!

@#1993, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument

@ #1994

... Yup, as you quoted, the claim you assert I made ..."

@ #347 … [note the bold text
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.
——————————————————

@ #199
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid …”

#1808 contained your musing about unicorns. It is nonsense that needs no response.

As #1809 contained “… you’ve not proven any of your claims …”

I already responded to that @ #1820, but since you didn’t notice, here it is again: To what claims are you referring?

If you’re questioning my observations in re people who post false statements they know are false when they post them, for example #708 & #710 an willful misrepresentation, ( #1327), please identify the posts you think are inaccurate, and explain why you think them so.

Absent that, they stand unchallenged as accurate.

Will you ever provide evidence to support your claim that Science can prove the existence of God?

@#1996:@ #1994

… Yup, as you quoted, the claim you assert I made …”

@ #347 … [note the bold text"

Yup, it proves you were wrong.

Go back and reread your assertion of what I said in 347 and then check what you bolded. They are not the same words at all.

@#1997, since there have only been red herrings, non sequiturs and other assorted deceptions and no actual logical argument against them, 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid due to no counterargument