Can science prove the existence of God? (Synopsis)

@ #1998
"Yup, it proves you were wrong ..."

@ #347 … [note the bold text]
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.”
——————————————————

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

@ #1999
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid …”

#1808 contained your musing about unicorns, and so 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?

Your claim, teabaggie: "your claim @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?"

My claim in 347: "Yup. And proven it."

There's only one word in your claim and what I actually said. And that only if you ignore the tenses. "Proven/prove".

So sad.

@#2001, 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

@ #2002
"... My claim in 347: “Yup. And proven it. ..."

@ #347 … [note the bold text]
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.”
——————————————————

Will you ever provide evidence to support your assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #2003
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid …”

#1808 contained your musing about unicorns, and so 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 assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God

@#2004: ""Yup. And proven it.”"

But that isn't what you insist I said in 347, teabaggie.

Oops! Wrong again!

@ #2007
"... But that isn’t what you insist I said in 347 ..."

@ #347 … [note the bold text]
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.”
——————————————————

"It’s funny because, you are not smart,"

Uh, someone who thinks every human pops into existence then pops out of existence rather than go through being born and being dead, REALLY doesn't have a leg to stand on to make that statement,will.

I'm sorry you're so dumb.

"love is the important thing"

Is it? Try existing with only love. See how long you last when there's no water, only love.

"like that man who was the son of God told us"

Yeah, sorry to give you the bad news, not only was that dude not the son of god, he never even existed.

"Or Muhammed or Buddha or any of those other folks you probably think are stupid"

You're the only one calling them stupid, will.

Maybe you need to stop people we know (well in the case of Mohammed, not so much Buddha though) existed stupid, and avoid calling people who are probably myths stupid too, 'cos that's pretty dumb.

@2008"@ #347 … [note the bold text]
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.”"

And the only one saying "science can prove the existence of god" in that post is you, teabaggie.

You REALLY suck at reading, don't you?

LOL!

re@ #2006

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

@ #2010

"... You REALLY suck at reading, don’t you? ..."

@ #347 … [note the bold text]
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.”
——————————————————

You do remember posting #347, don't you?

Will you ever provide evidence to support your assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?

@ #2011
“… 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 assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?

" your assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?"

But you're the only one who said "science can prove the existence of god".

Try and find a post where I say what you claim, or find another post to demand evidence for, teabaggie.

And calm down, dude.

LOL!

@ #2014

@ #347 … [note the bold text]
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.”
——————————————————

You do remember posting #347, don't you?

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

re:@#2013, 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

And your demands do not apply to 347 since your claim about what I said is not in there.

Find another post if you like. I don't mind. It's only you obsessed over it being #347.

@ #2014
"... Try and find a post where I say what you claim ...

——————————————————
@ #423
"... Yes, science can prove the existence of god ..."
——————————————————

QED

@ #2016
“… 1808 and 1809 (synthesised together in 1849) remain valid …”

As #1808 contained your musing about unicorns, it is nonsense that needs no response.

#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 assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?

#2018 "QED"

What was demonstrated? That you were barking up the wrong tree for no reason whatsoever?

Sure, it was a demonstration of your idiocy, but I doubt whether you benefited from that.

So, what is it you want me to do with #423?

re:@#2019, 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

Oh, we've already proven that #347 is the wrong one, teabaggie.

You're supposed to demand something about 423. You need to update your cutnpaste file.

LOL!

@ 2020
"What was demonstrated? ..."

@ #2014
“… Try and find a post where I say what you claim …

——————————————————
@ #423
“… Yes, science can prove the existence of god …”
——————————————————

QED

Quite
Easily
Done

Will you ever provide evidence to support your assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?

"QED

Quite
Easily
Done"

Wrong. Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

And it's apparently more than you can do to change your copypaste demand to make a demand of 423 instead of 347.

So, again, you're dumb, QED.

LOL!

"your assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God?"

That doesn't exist in 347. Apparently changing your demands to ask about 423 is quite impossible for you, teabaggie.

LOL!

@ #2025
"So, again, you’re dumb, QED"

More elegant prose from the one who is unable to provide evidence to support your assertion @ #347 that Science can prove the existence of God.

@ 2027

@ #347 … [note the bold text]
——————————————————
“You asserted as True that Science can prove the existence of God

Yup. And proven it.”
——————————————————

You did assert the proposition as true, didn't you?

You do remember posting #347, don't you?

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

Here's #423, teabaggie.

"You’ve never said what defintion of god you’ve used. Despite many attempts to get anything about you.

You have also failed entirely to comprehend the meaning of words like “prove”, “Another” and “evidence.

And despite your wild accusations and slowly disappearing claims, the answer is still standing: Yes, science can prove the existence of god."

Note the words "the answer is still standing". This indicates that the claim and presumably the proof or argument in support of it exists even earlier.

@ #2028

Yup! Wow sure did assert @ #347 that the proposition "Science can prove the existence of God" was true.

"@ 2027

@ #347 … [note the bold text]"

I did.

I did right from the first. All it does is show your claim is incorrect.

Oh, by the way, when you "QED"'d another post, it was later than 347.

You really need to be working the other way, because the argument for a claim will be earlier than the repeat of the conclusion.

This is how time words, teabaggie. I know it's a mystery to you, but trust me on it.

LOL!

@ #2030

"Yup! Wow sure did assert @ #347 that the proposition “Science can prove the existence of God” was true."

Okay then. I wanted to be sure.

"Wow sure did assert @ #347 that the proposition “Science can prove the existence of God” was true."

teabaggie sure doesn't know what he bolded!

I asserted "And proven it." The only one saying "science can prove the existence god" was you, teabaggie.

Care to provide proof of your claim quoted in 347?

@ #2032

Hey, no problem. The only one who's having a problem is the one who asserted @ #347 that the proposition “Science can prove the existence of God” was true.

You know, because he's never provided evidence to support that assertion.

@ #2034

"... You know, because he’s never provided evidence to support that assertion."

That's probably because he doesn't have any.

"The only one who’s having a problem is the one who asserted @ #347 that the proposition “Science can prove the existence of God” was true"

Well that was you, teabaggie. It's just above the bit you bolded.

Aaaaw. You have a groupie, teabaggie!

Or schizophrenia....

@ #2035

Valid point.

Of course, as Ethan has posted, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

... so, whose opinion should you trust?

@ #2038

"… so, whose opinion should you trust?"

I'll go with someone who is familiar with the subject material.

"as Ethan has posted"

But did he prove it, teabaggie?

Yeah, me too.

For that matter, Professor Dawkins shares the opinion that “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

Another expert contradicting wow.

I mean, as richard dawkins has posted in much greater detail:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.

But you don't accept anyone's word unless that word agrees with you.

That's a credo, not science, teabaggie.

@ #2041

"Another expert contradicting wow."

And that's NEWS in what way?

Remember this one from 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.”

"Another expert contradicting wow."

Afraid not, teabaggie. that is a nonsequitur and a formal logical fallacy.

Not to mention absolutely counterfactual to the claims dawkins has said himself, i.e.

"A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. "

But I figure you'll keep your own "special" (needs) interpretation over reality, because you need to keep your faith alive.

And when it comes to asronomy, there's the problem that we can't yet detect dark matter directly in lab conditions, but that doesn't mean science can't prove the existence of dark matter.

Or quantum loop gravity.

Or, indeed, the Higgs Boson before the LHC.

That we couldn't before then detect the effect of the Higgs didin't mean science could not prove its existence.

WOW-

We came from nothing...

Consciousness. YOur soul. Was supposedly non-existent but is now here, actively perceiving. Explain me that. Explain me, WOW, why a measurable electronic discharge emanates from the body upon death. It wasn't there at conception.

It's so easy to criticize... but you're doing it wrong. If you needed clarification you might have asked?

@ #2043

So, one question that should be considered is, are the statements from Ethan and Professor Dawkins more plausible, based upon the evidence available now, that someone who posts false statements that are known to be false when posted (#708 & #710), and intentionally misquoting (#1327)?

That certain someone has also failed to post evidence to support the claim that Science can prove the existence of God, which is the thread topic.

@ #2044
"“Another expert contradicting wow.”
Afraid not ..."

You @ #423 “… science can prove the existence of god …”
E. Siegel “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, ..."

Ethan flatly contradicts your claim.
You're wrong
Again

"We came from nothing…"

No, you dropped from your momma's vijay.

"Consciousness."

Is what your brain feels like when it's operating.

" YOur soul."

What? Why do you claim there's a soul? You're confused about the process of living stopping at some point and trying to reify the difference as "soul", when no such thing exists, any more than there's a "soul of egg whisking" that dies and goes to heaven when you stop beating the egg whites.

" Explain me, WOW, why a measurable electronic discharge emanates from the body upon death"

Chemistry is the realisation of work through the changing of electrical potentials. Your nervous system, for example, relies on charged ions being received and the energy of their capture changing the chemistry of the receptor.

This is how we fudge about with things like your perception (hallucinogenics), touch (painkillers) and so forth.

"It wasn’t there at conception."

What wasn't there? Being dead? No, stillbirths are a thing, will.

"It’s so easy to criticize"

Uh, that's no defence of having dumb ideas and being wrong, will. Of course it#s easy to criticise shit writing and assertions. That doesn't mean your crap ideas aren't allowed to be argued against and lose.

"Ethan flatly contradicts your claim.
You’re wrong"

Unless Ethan is wrong.

You have to prove Ethan is right, teabaggie. A thing you haven't done.

Otherwise this is an argument from authority and, since he's not a theologian, a false one.

"someone who posts false statements that are known to be false when posted (357 #1001, & #1370)"

FTFY, teabaggie.

And, no, that's just a red herring you tried there.

Logic fail AGAIN, teabaggie.

So sad!

LOL!

So we have a second hand account of a quotemine without support from Ethan posted saying somethign like god can't be proved or disproced with science, and professor dawkins who says that the existence of god is definitely a scientific question.

So we need a tiebreaker opinion.

Oh, Bill Nye, who says that evidence would convince him he's wrong, so he clearly also agrees that science can prove the existence of god.

So, I win two-to-one.

"“Another expert contradicting wow.”

And that’s NEWS in what way?"

In no way.

Because Professor Dawkins agrees with me, in fact.

Sorry, teabaggie, this is reality disagreeing with you.

Aaaawww. Does it burn?

LOL!

Oh, and ragbag medium, sockpuppeting is something you claimed to have stopped.

BAD DOG!

LOL!

@ #2050

"...Unless Ethan is wrong."
The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science is much, much lower than is the probability that you are wrong.

I'll go with the probabilities.

"... You have to prove Ethan is right, ..."
No, I do not. As this topic "Can science prove the existence of God", Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I'll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

"... this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one."

This topic "Can science prove the existence of God", Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I'll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I'll take Ethan's opinion, "Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God", and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any day, and every day.

@ #2053
"... Professor Dawkins agrees with me, in fact."

No he does not.

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

@ #2052
"... So, I win two-to-one."

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

"@ #2050

“…Unless Ethan is wrong.”
The probability of Ethan being wrong"

Has not been asserted. Which is why yours is an appeal to authority fallacy, teabaggie.

@ #2051

You quoted me as having posted, “someone who posts false statements that are known to be false when posted (357 #1001, & #1370)”

That is another example of intentionally misquoting.

"@ #2053
“… Professor Dawkins agrees with me, in fact.”

No he does not."

Contradiction instead of proof. Fail, teabaggie.

By the way, he does:

A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.

@ #2059

" “…Unless Ethan is wrong.”
The probability of Ethan being wrong ...”

The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science is much, much lower than is the probability that you are wrong.

I’ll go with the probabilities.

“… You have to prove Ethan is right, …”
No, I do not. As this topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

“… this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one.”

This topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I’ll take Ethan’s opinion, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God”, and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any day, and every day.

"@ #2052
“… So, I win two-to-one.”

You appealed to popularity"

Just like you did, only after you tried it, teabaggie. A reappearance of your dishonesty via a double standard.

FAIL!

LOL!

"” “…Unless Ethan is wrong.”
The probability of Ethan being wrong …”

The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science"

Is a fallacious argument, teabaggie. Argument by authority.

FAIL!

@ #2060
“… By the way, he [Professor Dawkins] does [agree with me].”

He does not agree with you on the topic "Can science prove the existence of God"..

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

"You quoted me as having posted, “someone who posts false statements that are known to be false when posted (357 #1001, & #1370)”"

No I did not, teabaggie. Read the post again.

FAIL!

@ #2063
"... The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science ..."

The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science is much, much lower than is the probability that you are wrong.

I’ll go with the probabilities.

“… You have to prove Ethan is right, …”
No, I do not. As this topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

“… this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one.”

This topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I’ll take Ethan’s opinion, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God”, and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts [Templeton Foundation grants], no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any day, and every day.

"@ #2060
“… By the way, he [Professor Dawkins] does [agree with me].”

He does not agree with you on the topic “Can science prove the existence of God”.."

Yes he does, right here:

"A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. "

"The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue "

Is why your claim is an appeal to authority fallacy.

" “You quoted me as having posted, “someone who posts false statements that are known to be false when posted (357 #1001, & #1370)””

No I did not ..."

Back to contradiction again.

Everyone can read that you posted @ #2051, quoting me, " “someone who posts false statements that are known to be false when posted (357 #1001, & #1370)” "

"” “You quoted me as having posted, “someone who posts false statements that are known to be false when posted (357 #1001, & #1370)””

No I did not …”

Back to contradiction again."

And back to fallacious refusal to address the issue again.

You fail hard when you fail don't you teabaggie!

LOL!

@ #2067
" He does not agree with you on the topic “Can science prove the existence of God”..”

Yes he does, right here:
“A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “ "

That, “A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.' is not the thread topic.

He does not agree with you on the topic “Can science prove the existence of God”..

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

@ #2070
"... And back to fallacious refusal to address the issue again. ..."

I note that you no longer argue the point that you intentionally misquoted me.

"That, “A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.’ is not the thread topic. "

And another fallacious claim about the topic or the relevance of evidence you wish to wave off as if it were not a massive problem for you.

Refusing to real with reality doesn't make it disappear, teabaggie.

Sad.

"“… And back to fallacious refusal to address the issue again. …”

I note that you no longer argue the point that you intentionally misquoted me."

I note that you draw an erroneous conclusion out of thin air and belief, teabaggie.

Go read the post again, your claim is counterfactual

Sad.

" ... another fallacious claim about the topic ..."

The thread topic is “Can science prove the existence of God”.

The thread topic is not "A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference."

Professor Dawkins does not agree with you on the topic “Can science prove the existence of God”..

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

I post, with the proof, that science can prove the existence of god at post #1, teabaggie.

And you can't claim you cannot find post #1, teabaggie! Ask teacher what 1 looks like when written down!

LOL!

@ #2074
"... your claim is counterfactual"

You still no longer argue the point that you intentionally misquoted me.

"” … another fallacious claim about the topic …”

The thread topic is “Can science prove the existence of God”."

Indeed it is. Seems you cannot comprehend what that means, though.

Either due to dishonesty or ignorance of science.

FAIL!

@ #2076
"I post, with the proof, that science can prove the existence of god at post #1 ..."

You have never presented any evidence to support your claim that science can prove the existence of God

"@ #2074
“… your claim is counterfactual”

You still no longer argue the point that you intentionally misquoted me."

You still don't know what counterfactual means, then. Ask a grown up, teabaggie.

@ #2078
" The thread topic is “Can science prove the existence of God”.”
Indeed it is. ..."

And Professor Dawkins does not agree with you on the topic “Can science prove the existence of God”..

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

"“I post, with the proof, that science can prove the existence of god at post #1 …”

You have never presented any evidence to support your claim that science can prove the existence of God"

It's in post #1 teabaggie.

@ #2080
"... You still don’t know what counterfactual means ..."

You still no longer argue the point that you intentionally misquoted me.

"And Professor Dawkins does not agree with you on the topic “Can science prove the existence of God”."

Incorrect, he does right in the link you have:

“A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “

FAIL! LOL!

@ #2082
It’s in post #1..."

There is no scientific (remember the thread topic) evidence in that post to support your claim that science can prove the existence of God

"“… You still don’t know what counterfactual means …”

You still no longer argue the point that you intentionally misquoted me."

No, I still do argue that you are wrong about that. That's what "your argument is counterfactual" means. Contrary to fact.

You need to get some grown up to help you read, teabaggie.

"It’s in post #1…”

There is no scientific (remember the thread topic) evidence "

What is the topic of the thread, teabaggie??? "Where is the scientific evidence for god?"? No?

Then you fail hard again, teabggie.

LOL!

@ #2084

" “And Professor Dawkins does not agree with you on the topic “Can science prove the existence of God”.”

Incorrect, he does right in the link you have:

“A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “

That, “A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “ is not the thread topic.

The thread topic is “Can science prove the existence of God”.”

"That, “A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “ is not the thread topic. "

Yes, it is not the thread topic.

But it IS why science can prove the existence of god.

You know, the evidence you keep demanding, then refusing to see.

LOL!

@ #2087
"What is the topic of the thread ..."

The thread topic is “Can science prove the existence of God”

The thread topic is not “Where is the scientific evidence for god? ...”

"... No?"

No

@ #2089
" “That, “A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “ is not the thread topic. ”

Yes, it is not the thread topic.

But it IS why science can prove the existence of god"

An claim is not evidence.

@ #2063
“… The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science …”

The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science is much, much lower than is the probability that you are wrong.

I’ll go with the probabilities.

“… You have to prove Ethan is right, …”
No, I do not. As this topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

“… this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one.”

This topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I’ll take Ethan’s opinion, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God”, and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any every day.

"The probability of Ethan being wrong ..."

"An claim is not evidence." Remember, teabaggie!

FAIL!

LOL!

PS you keep forgetting “A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “.

@ #2093
" “The probability of Ethan being wrong …”

“An claim is not evidence.” ..."

The probability of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science is much, much lower than is the probability that you are wrong.

I’ll go with the probabilities.

“… You have to prove Ethan is right, …”
No, I do not. As this topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

“… this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one.”

This topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I’ll take Ethan’s opinion, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God”, and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any & every day.

"@ #2093
” “The probability of Ethan being wrong …”

“An claim is not evidence.” …”

The probability of Ethan being wrong "

I notice you're not even bothering to read, teabaggie.

Oh you are such a mutton!

LoL!

"@ #2093
” “The probability of Ethan being wrong …”

“An claim is not evidence.” …”

The probability of Ethan being wrong "

I notice you're not even bothering to read, teabaggie.

Oh you are such a mutton!

LoL!

@ #2095
"Oh you are such a mutton!"

When you attempted to insult me , you didn't use foul language this time.

that's an improvement

@ #2095
” “The probability of Ethan being wrong …”

“An claim is not evidence.” …”

The probability, as measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible., of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science is much, much lower than is the probability that you are wrong.

I’ll go with the probabilities.

“… You have to prove Ethan is right, …”
No, I do not. As this topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

“… this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one.”

This topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I’ll take Ethan’s opinion, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God”, and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any & every day.

There is no bigger insult than being you, teabaggie.

I just use words that rile you up for the lulz. Never fails! LOL!

And it's not as if you will bother to visit reality or start being honest if I refuse to use words on your undefined "bad words" list, is it?

@2098
"There is no bigger insult than being you ..."

That's more the cheerful individual I've come to know!

"The probability, as measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible., of Ethan being wrong about this issue "

is far higher than the probability, as measured by the ratio of the favourable cases to the whole number of cases possible, of Richard Dawkins being wrong about this issue, since he's far more knowledgable about religion and theology than a theoretical astrophysicist.

(note how he was wrong about CCD capture rates for a failure)

And, since Richard Dawkins says:“A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

(Which means that he too thinks that science can prove the existence of god)

you should go with the probabilities.

What you, I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Richard Dawkins being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of Ethan being correct.

And until we have some posterior knowledge about the case that weighs against it, accept Richard Dawkins' answer: yes, science can prove the existence of god.

@ #2098
“… it’s not as if you will bother to visit reality or start being honest …”

No dishonesty HERE.

If, however, you wish to explore the subject of statements in this thread known to be false to the poster when they were posted, I have collected a few for your review.

------------------------------------------------

@ #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 assertion @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

R. Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

"“… it’s not as if you will bother to visit reality or start being honest …”

No dishonesty HERE."

Good you agree I was not being dishonest, teabaggie!

"R. Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”"

Which means that science can, but hasn't yet, proved the existence of god.

What a fail, teabaggie!

LOL!

R Dawkins: “A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

@ #2100

What you claim Professor Dawkins means, "... he too thinks that science can prove the existence of god ..."

What Professor Dawkins posts, “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

As it is documented that you post statements that are false which you knew to be false when you posted them (#708 & #710), and intentionally misrepresent/misquote others' posts (#1327 ) ...

I'll believe what Professor Dawkins says rather than what you say he means.

I'll go with the probabilities.

While I'm on the subject of probability, the probability, as measured by the ratio of the favorable cases to the whole number of cases possible., of Ethan being wrong about this issue in Science is much, much lower than is the probability that you are wrong.

I’ll go with the probabilities.

“… You have to prove Ethan is right, …”
No, I do not. As this topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

“… this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one.”

This topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I’ll take Ethan’s opinion, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God”, and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any & every day.

R Dawkins also disagrees with the scientists who claim without proof, as Ethan has done, that science cannot infringe on god claims:

The Neville Chamberlain ‘appeasement’ school focuses on the battle for evolution. Consequently, its members identify fundamentalism as the enemy, and they bend over backwards to appease ‘moderate’ or ‘sensible’ religion (not a difficult task, for bishops and theologians despise fundamentalists as much as scientists do).

..

Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould’s ‘NOMA’ - ‘non-overlapping magisteria’. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

I note that you do not claim a doctorate in anything, much less a doctorate in a scientific discipline.

Why would I prefer your assertion, without evidence, that science can prove the existence of God, when Ethan, who does have a doctorate in a scientific discipline posts “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”?

What do you bring to the table?

"I’ll go with the probabilities."

Except you do not and proclaim Richard wrong and Ethan right.

Because you are shit scared from the terrorising christianity did to you during your childhood that has closed down your ability to think on the subject.

You're busy trying to shut the voice out that knows it's all a fairy tale.

And science is what's led you to know it's all a fake like every other mythology.

Sad, teabaggie. So very sad.

LOL!

"Why would I prefer your assertion,"

So prefer Richard Dawkins, whose experties is much higher on this subject than a theoretical astrophysicist.

And accept that science can prove the existence of god.

Or are you incapable of breaking the indoctrination you received from your early childhood brainwashing?

@ #2108
"R Dawkins also disagrees with the scientists who claim without proof, as Ethan has done, that science cannot infringe on god claims"

I'll let you chat with Ethan about that.

What we know is that neither Professor Dawkins nor Ethan agree with your claim.

From E. Siegel “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”

Science relies on evidence for factual proof.
You have provided none.

"“R Dawkins also disagrees with the scientists who claim without proof, as Ethan has done, that science cannot infringe on god claims”

I’ll let you chat with Ethan about that."

So you concede the point, teabaggie.

@ #2111
"... So prefer Richard Dawkins, whose experties is much higher on this subject than a theoretical astrophysicist. ..."

OK, I will.

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

@ #2113

"... I’ll let you chat with Ethan about that.”
So you concede the point ..."

No, what I posted was "I’ll let you chat with Ethan about that.".

"What we know is that neither Professor Dawkins nor Ethan agree with your claim."

What we know is that Ethan, the less capable exponent on the subject, disagrees, if your assertion is to be taken as valid, but Richard Dawkins agrees with my claim.

“A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

It's pretty clear to anyone who is capable of looking at reality or cares about being honest.

Neither, of course, apply to you, so you will ignore and reject for no reason the plain facts presented to you.

"Science relies on evidence for factual proof."

Yes, it does.

But this, yet again, is a red herring argument and merely indicates that you are still incapable of rational thought when it comes to gods, as has been the case the entire length of this thread.

Sad, teabaggie. So terribly sad.

LOL!

"@ #2113

“… I’ll let you chat with Ethan about that.”
So you concede the point …”

No, what I posted was “I’ll let you chat with Ethan about that.”."

Yes, so you concede the point. The authority you want for no reason to have accepted is declared incorrect by a more authoritative source, so you pass it on to Ethan, else you would be able to counter it yourself.

@ #116
"... Richard Dawkins agrees with my claim ..."

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

"@ #2111
“… So prefer Richard Dawkins, whose experties is much higher on this subject than a theoretical astrophysicist. …”

OK, I will."

Good, so you agree that a universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference.

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
“A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. “
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

@ #2116
“… this, yet again, is a red herring argument [Science relies on evidence for factual proof] …”

A red herring argument? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a red herring argument.

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 you did @ #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 expressed
@ #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.

@ #2111
“… So prefer Richard Dawkins, whose experties is much higher on this subject than a theoretical astrophysicist. …”

You @ #423, without evidence, “… science can prove the existence of god …”

Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

"“… this, yet again, is a red herring argument [Science relies on evidence for factual proof] …”

A red herring argument? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a red herring argument."

And that is a nonsequitur fallacy, teabaggie.

Oooh, that fail must have hurt!

LOL!

"Professor Dawkins: “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…"

So you think that Ethan is wrong and science has proven there is no god.

Well, OK, we can agree on all of that if you like.

@ #2116
"... you will ignore and reject for no reason the plain facts presented to you. ..."

I’ll go with the probabilities.

“… You have to prove Ethan is right, …” (#2050)
No, I do not. As this topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, what I can do is to weigh the likelihood of you or Ethan being correct. Ethan has his doctorate in a science discipline. Do you? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihoods of being correct.

“… this is an argument from authority and, since he’s not a theologian, a false one.”

This topic “Can science prove the existence of God”, Is a question about science, not Theology.

What I and everyone else can do can do is to weigh the likelihood of Ethan being correct, and compare that to the likelihood of you being correct.

Ethan has been trained in and his doctorate is in a science discipline. Do you have a doctorate? Have you spent years practicing a scientific discipline? If so, you prove it and I’ll change the the relative likelihood of Wow vs. Ethan being correct.

Until and unless that happens, I’ll take Ethan’s opinion, “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God”, and that of Professor Dawkins, “…Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God’s existence has yet appeared.” over your opinion any & every day.

"@ #2116
“… you will ignore and reject for no reason the plain facts presented to you. …”

I’ll go with the probabilities."

You haven't, so this is a lie.

@ #2116
“…a nonsequitur fallacy …”

A non sequitur fallacy? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a non sequitur fallacy

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 you did @ #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 expressed
@ #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.

@ #2126
“… this is a lie …”

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 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 assertion @ #347 that you have proven that Science can prove the existence of God?

"“…a nonsequitur fallacy …”

A non sequitur fallacy? You are mistaken. No, the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a non sequitur fallacy"

And that is nonsense. Oooh, get some ointment on the burn, teabaggie!

LOL!

"@ #2126
“… this is a lie …”

No lie HERE,"

Ah contradiction instead of evidence! Well done for being a retard of such unswerving ignorance, teabaggie!

LOL!

@ #2129
"... the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a non sequitur fallacy”

And that is nonsense ..."

You are mistaken.the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a non sequitur fallacy.

Care to refute the claim in post #1, teabaggie?

Why so terrified of the number one? Are you worried that it's going to upset the gnomes under your bed?!?!?!

LOL!

@ #130
"... a retard of such unswerving ignorance ..."

More eloquence!

"@ #2129
“… the Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a non sequitur fallacy”

And that is nonsense …”

You are mistaken"

I am correct, you are mistaken. Sorry, teabaggie. You're not in the playground any longer. Grown ups have to use reasoning not volume for proofs.

LOL!

"Care to refute the claim in post #1 ..."

You have not provided any evidence to support your assertion @ #1.

Your claim @ #1 is unwarranted.

"Your claim @ #1 is unwarranted."

So it's not under arrest? Is that your only problem with the claim?

Odd.

So, no argument against it. Fair enough.

@ #2134
"... I am correct, you are mistaken ..."

The Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not a non sequitur fallacy

No, you remain mistaken.

"No, you remain mistaken."

About what, tebaggie?

@ #2138
“… About what …”

About what? You are mistaken about the Scientific method of exploring the natural world.

For example, Scientific method of exploring the natural world is not about 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 discovered, 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 occurred @ #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 expressed
@ #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.

Ethan... once he gets around to looking at analytics and realizes where the comment sections went for this topic

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CpEtyVOU3dU

"@ #2138
“… About what …”

About what? You are mistaken about the Scientific method of exploring the natural world."

In what way am i mistaken about the scientific method of exploring the world, teabaggie?

SL, yeah, but this is the result of having a blog with no editor.

Sucks for the genuine people who aren't scumbucket idiots and trolls, and does fuck up the site as anywhere you can go for some actual information (I try to keep up with the other threads before teabaggie here spams them off the screen), but look at it as the reason for wanting some editorial control over content.

Maybe Ethan wants the scienceblogs section to be made so unpalatable that everyone will be driven to medium or forbes, where he can monetise the content.

"...where he can monetise the content."

2100+ comments for an article in 20 days is very much monetizable .. directly or indirectly. IMO that's the reason it's allowed to persist.

I kinda hope not, SL, 'cos that's kinda scuzzy.

If the medium or forbes monetisation is to pay for some editorial control, then there's a quid-pro-quo going on there, and a reasonable one, and if letting it slide here was just because it's a time waste for no benefit to Ethan is both reasonable and coherent.

But if he's monetising the spamming here and doing no editorialising, then it rather kills the argument "At least on the other sites, Ethan gets paid for the time spent on the site", since there would be no positive to going to either medium or forbes. It just means more monetising.

It would also follow that there is an incentive to get trolls and splash controversial headlines and threads, because profiting is more important than the conversation being of value.

But I don't see any evidence of this, and there is some reason for letting it happen (lack of ROI or as a demonstration of the value of editorial control of a "public area" like a blog, which lacks all other social constraints on interactions), so unless I see or hear some evidence to the contrary, though the concern you voice is valid, it isn't anything more than a theoretical scenario.

A point to consider just occurred, SL. It could be Ethan is trying behind the scenes to control this thread, and he may be fly-swatting trolls with throwaway or fake email addresses.

So "letting" may be too strong a word to use.

There's no evidence that effort is being done, and that could be sorted by some words, though that again may be avoided for reasons Ethan think valid to adhere to.

As it is, all we have is what is dealt to us in the threads alone, and "I will allow this to continue" is all we've heard on the subject, along with acknowledgement it got to near 1000 threads when after about 400-ish, there wasn't really much new stuff being posted.

All else is conjecture.

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

John,
Don't you think it's possible that 'proof' might have been used here in a more vernacular sense of 'provide warrant for high confidence' rather than 'strictly and only a sound deduction'?

I mean you're right to say that science doesn't deductively prove things. Its inductive, with all that implies. But Ethan's OP is clearly approaching the question from an inductive perspective. He talks about estimating the probability of life and what we might conclude if the data doesn't match our estimation. So why are you assuming he could only have been referring to a deductive proof?

@ #2141
"... In what way am i mistaken about the scientific method of exploring the world ..."

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.

Will, for example, has posted the kind of half-thought rubbish that religions try to indoctrinate people with (and when that fails to get them into any religion, they go to woo sites like "Spirit Science" which just packages the same guff up with some nonsense wordsalad using science-y words to "sound" legit.

And demanding an explanation as he did, then ignoring the answer is a common thing among those who really aren't here to listen.

But when that's demonstrated, it does help shift a few fence-sitters into thinking again about those unsubstantiated claims of woo.

But post-400-ish, maybe 90% of the content was redundant and could be dropped. Maybe a higher percentage.

"@ #2141
“… In what way am i mistaken about the scientific method of exploring the world …”
....
#1400 “… The definition of science is the testing and proving of scientific hypotheses! …”"

In what way is that mistaken, teabaggie?

You make the claim, but do not explain why your claimed evidence applies!

Oh, still you fail, after a long long long long looooong time of searching and constructing your (apparently) best case, but all you've ended up with an assertion you claim is proof "that they don’t “get” Science.

I have pointed out your disagreement with that claim is proof you do not understand science or the English language.

So your assertion still lacks any evidence that applies.

You are also mistaken teabaggie when you claimed in #2137 that I was mistaken, since that was not referring to post #1400 but to post #2134.

Your assertion that I was mistaken was, itself, an error you have now conceded.

Or you were mistaken in #2139 where your claim was against post #2138, which was still not post #1400.

I mean, the sound of those whooshing goalposts you're replanting must be knackering you out, teabaggie!

In what way does what you "think" matter, will? You demanded an answer to a question, then ignored it to go full retard on me for not being stumped by a question that you "thought" was a killer argument.

So what you "think" really doesnt pertain to any actual reality, only to your own personal preferences.

Of which I give not a single shit.

Doubly so when your whinging is from a cause you yourself have to participate in. I'm not your nanny, kid. You have a mum (who won't be pleased to know you don't think she had to go through childbirth for you). Ask them to comfort you for doing something that anguished you.

Weird. Teabaggie complains about what he claims are mistakes, but despite a chain of them all in a row, doesn't think that that means the same for him as it does for me.

It's probably a double standard and spamming the same old crap to avoid answering eric's post without ignoring it, making eric waste his time and (teabaggie hopes) give up trying to reason with the unreasoning moron teabaggie.

LOL. True John.

Science can't prove god exists. That much should be obvious.

You'd want deductive reasoning to conclude that God exists, but even then you are on shaky ground.

A lot was sorted out through logic and reasoning.

This is a good read: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl…

I could really give a rat's ass what Wow I am a Total Dick says anyhow. I didn't read a single point where he wasn't just a whining kid who wanted to spend some of the money his parents are saving so he can do something useful with his life, like be a dentist or a comedian. He'd make a great comedian, he's so funny all the time. SUch a funny boy! Like that Seinfeld on the television all the time!

"WHAT'S the DEEALLLL with SCIENCE?"

@ wow

"‘cos that’s kinda scuzzy. .... But if he’s monetising the spamming ..."

No, nothing so drastic... and not with any evil intent. But traffic is monetized, and ads are shown every time you and john and me and everyone else opens this or any other thread (some of use ad blocker, but you understand what I mean). Some are paid on click some on impression. That's the direct way. The indirect way is that departments in corporations that do hire Ethan and pay him for writing, do care about his outreach and user engagement to the content he is creating. And those analytics are looked and analyzed. An author who has a more engaging reader base and has better "score" will be more sought after. Weather it's for forbes or if it's finding investor for next book. The "performance" of the articles and "user activity" are what's looked at. And data is sort of blind behind either you and john. What they see is 800+ views from UK, 1000+ views from US, extremely low bounce rate, extremely high user engagement with content. Great data in all honesty. And nothing bad with it. From online presence and marketing perspective, this blog and thread are performing great.

" since there would be no positive to going to either medium or forbes. It just means more monetising."

well like I said.. i think it's a necessary evil for i.e. someone like forbes to even open a door to you. Yes, your reader base will have haters and trolls.. but they read and follow you non the less. It's a fine line writing only for your hearts desire and run a blog in sort of a hobbist way and banning every 3rd of 4th person that comes to a blog, and making a living out of writing and actually needing people to read whatever their background opinions are. Which is IMO normal. The world is scuzzy.. the market is ruthless.

I mean we are adults here. Ethan full well knew/knows that an article about science vs god would stir a debate and activity. That's sort of the whole point. If he wanted to do "pure physics" that maybe made some of us happy.. he would have written about maybe finer points of spins in QFT, not about god. So in that sense... I do think there was very deliberate intent in terms of comment activity :) That it would reach these number.. no one thought I think.

I sense that "Wow" is mentally ill.

I will pray for you my son.

Oh, who is teabaggie?

I still haven't figured out why you keep talking about some obscure erotic homosexual fetish. I don't know about you, but it's pretty unpleasant for me to keep picturing you doing that to a man.

@ wow

“‘cos that’s kinda scuzzy. …. But if he’s monetising the spamming …”

No, nothing so drastic… and not with any evil intent.

Well, it looked like you were talking about it being a deliberate act to leave it go 2000+ posts.

It’s not unusual for those who feel insecure in the argument they are advancing to attack their opponent in an attempt to intimidate. This would be true when, for example, when the attacker lacks evidence to support the claim made.

Ah, that would be you then, teabaggie.

LOL. True John.

Science can’t prove god exists. That much should be obvious.

If that were true, then god does not exist.

Otherwise there's nothing "obvious" about it other than your claim lacks any support in either logic or evidence.

"I sense that “Wow” is mentally ill."

I sense that will is projecting. Or talking out of his arse.

I will sacrifice to the flying spaghetti monster for your recovery, will.

"some obscure erotic homosexual fetish"

The only one obsessing over some obscure homosexual fetish is you, will.

Maybe you need to get out of that closet.

Or into reality and see what "teabagging" is in common parlance. (hint: teabaggie really hates it and calls it an insult. If that hint isn't broad enough, ask a friend to borrow their CoD game for a bit)

" Science can’t prove that a lot of things exist"

Such as...? It cant prove anything that doesn't exist exists, because that's the definition of "doesn't exist" is that it can't be proven to exist, since it doesn't.

THAT is obvious. But a little redundant.

Sans that your claim has nothing other than blank assertion, and is moreover contraindicated in the definition of god, and the actions of just about every person who considers the case, either religious or atheist.

"Just because wow’s behavior is abnormal"

Weird definition of abnormal you must have, teabaggie.

"and without any evidence to support his claim that science can prove the existence of God,"

Except this appears to be only true for your very abnormal definition of evidence and what it is for teabaggie.

It's like you're being dishonest and do not care one whit!

Oh, hang on, that IS what you are doing! Silly me, eh?

LOL!

Still, the massive cockup in making that chain of mistakes claiming I was mistaken when you were mistaken about which posts you were talking about and posted the wrong response to the posts I made has probably made you leery of engaging again in anything other than softball comments away from reality.

@ #2174
"... Weird definition of abnormal you must have ..."

You are mistaken.

I've noticed no other commenter on these these threads using coarse language as you do. For examples of this abnormal behavior, ref , #25, #50, #69, #90, #427, #447, #1000, #1586, #1587, #1782, #1587, #2142, #1587, etc.

Posting false statements you knew were false when you posted them (#708 & #710) are also, as far as I can tell not normal for the other commenters in the SWAB threads I’ve read.

"@ #2174
“… Weird definition of abnormal you must have …”

You are mistaken.

I’ve noticed no other commenter on these these threads using coarse language as you do."

But if excessives like that are the definiition of abnormal, then you have been abnormal, teabaggie.

From the spamposting of content free rubbish to the incessant wordgame avoidance and the flat out insanity of some of your posts, and the complete lack of any actual coherent posting makes you abnormal.

Your definition requires looking for differences and then noting the differences, which is pure confirmation bias.

Indeed given that "rude" would have been a far more accurate statement without any confusion over what you meant, your avoidance of "rude" and use of "abnormal" is either extremely abnormal itself (since rude != abnormal normally) or yet another deceptive rhetorical trick to delegitimise comments by attacking the character of the poster so as to avoid having to deal with the argument.

Which is very much the definition of "ad hominem fallacy", teabaggie.

I am afraid you have been well and truly busted.

LOL!

@ #2177

... chuckling ... for not denying anything, that was beautifully worded.

"@ #2177

for not denying anything"

For not denying your own abnormality or the supported accusation of ad hominem fallacies you engaged in, that was badly written.

LOL!

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…

@#2180.

So? See 2164. Unless that link was to 2164, in which case, the response is really "So????"

For not denying anything, that post was a waste of effort.

I guess you are having to troll yourself now.

@ #2181

Perhaps you'd prefer http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/01/20/can-science-prove-th…

Why would I?

2164 uses "abnormal" when it should have used "rude".

For saying nothing at all, you took an abnormally long winded and obscure way of doing it.

But I guess that's just what you do, eh teabaggie?

@ #2183
"2164 uses “abnormal” when it should have used “rude”."

I'm sure you believe that to be true.

Well, again with the non denials of the accusations, teabaggie. That, too is one of your man hallmarks of abnormality.

I take it you're nearly giving up, then.

Well, never mind, eh? You never used it anyway! LOL!

@ #2184
"... That, too is one of your man hallmarks of abnormality."

Abnormality?

Do I behave like you? I’ve noticed no other commenter on these these threads using coarse language as you do. For examples of this abnormal behavior, ref , #25, #50, #69, #90, #427, #447, #1000, #1586, #1587, #1782, #1587, #2142, #1587, etc.

Posting false statements you knew were false when you posted them (#708 & #710) are also, as far as I can tell not normal for the other commenters in the SWAB threads I’ve read.

So, you see nothing abnormal or aberrant insofar as no one else in the SWAB threads I've read behaves like you do?

On balance, taking your pluses with your minuses, I think a persuasive case can be presented for using the word "abnormal" to describe your behavior in these SWAB threads.

@ #2184
“… That, too is one of your man hallmarks of abnormality.”

Abnormality?

Do I behave" abnormally"?"

FTFY.

Yes, you do, teabaggie. You even accept the charge with your lack of riposte to 2177. Your continued flailing about with nonsequiturs and red herrings and the other assorted trappings of dishonest argument indicate you still cannot find a reason why you are innocent of the charge.

It's why you have to pretend that abnormality has to mean rude, when they are not synonyms.

You have, yet again, passed an abnormally long screed of nothing-at-all to avoid reality.

But I guess you can't face reality when it dares not agree with your wishes.

Sad.

LOL!

@ #2188

"Yes, you do ..."

Do I behave like you? I’ve noticed no other commenter on these these threads using coarse language as you do. I don't. For examples of this abnormal behavior, ref , #25, #50, #69, #90, #427, #447, #1000, #1586, #1587, #1782, #1587, #2142, #1587, etc.

Posting false statements you knew were false when you posted them (#708 & #710) are also, as far as I can tell not normal for the other commenters in the SWAB threads I’ve read.

So, you see nothing abnormal or aberrant insofar as no one else in the SWAB threads I’ve read behaves like you do?

"@ #2188

“Yes, you do …”

Do I behave "

Abnormally.

Yes. VERY abnormal.

"Posting false statements you knew were false when you posted them"

Yes, such as #2139, #2137, #1260, #679, #895.

@ #2190
"... Yes. VERY abnormal"

I’m sure you believe that to be true.

"So, you see nothing abnormal or aberrant insofar"

As someone who has posted "chuckling" 38 times in this thread?

That would be you "chucklehead".

LOL!

@2192

LOL! For not denying you are abnormal, that was at least brief, teabaggie!

@ #2193
"As someone who has posted “chuckling” 38 times in this thread?"

And, as I've commented before, I find it entirely in keeping with our two very different personalities that I chuckle, and you snigger.

Do you think Ethan meant it in a sufficiently relaxed way as to admit into the conversation those who post false statements they know to be false when they post them?

I'm not going to get drawn into your endless tiff with Wow. I asked whether you thought Ethan meant a formal deductive proof or was using 'prove' in the context of induction. Are you going to answer that?

Given that his full post discusses the teleological argument, I thought it was pretty obvious he was discussing induction. Thus your focus on deduction misses his point entirely, essentially strawmanning his argument.

@ #2194
"... For not denying you are abnormal, that was at least brief ..."

Has denying any of your prior accusations changed your behavior?

What I posted @ #2192 was "I’m sure you believe that to be true."

Sinisia

Ethan full well knew/knows that an article about science vs god would stir a debate and activity. That’s sort of the whole point. If he wanted to do “pure physics” that maybe made some of us happy.. he would have written about maybe finer points of spins in QFT, not about god. So in that sense… I do think there was very deliberate intent in terms of comment activity

Reading his full article, it appears his goal was to educate people as to how frequent habitable planets really could be. He then notes that even if life like humans was remarkably unlikely, the god of the gaps argument still has problems, and what he sees as one of the problems for him.

The article title is a bit of a mis-fit to the subject, or maybe intentionally provocative. But for some reason John has taken it literally rather than reading for content, and so here we are 2200 posts later.

eric @ 2196
" I asked whether you thought Ethan meant a formal deductive proof or was using ‘prove’ in the context of induction. Are you going to answer that? Are you going to answer that?"

Rather than expressing what I thought or think about what Ethan may mean or may have meant, I believe Ethan has answered very well: “Science can never prove or disprove the existence of God, but if we use our beliefs as an excuse to draw conclusions that scientifically, we’re not ready for, we run the grave risk of depriving ourselves of what we might have come to truly learn.”
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/02/12/comments-of-the-week…

You may like Ethan's statement as little as wow, but I think that Ethan meant what he posted.

eric,

I just noticed an extra "Are you going to answer that?" @ #2199. Sorry about that.

"The article title is a bit of a mis-fit to the subject, or maybe intentionally provocative. But for some reason John has taken it literally rather than reading for content, and so here we are 2200 posts later."

Additionally, part 1 garnered only about a hundred posts, and very little batshit.

Here it got to nearly 100 with little to no problem, then hasnain posted and it all went to shit since then, mostly hasnain until he got kicked or left or whatever, then teabaggie here took over the batshit and it's not stopped since.

Note: teabaggie wasn't in on part 1, it looks like,

@ #2201
"teabaggie here took over the batshit and it’s not stopped since"

A disappointing return to form

What's that, teabaggie? Tone argument? That dog don't hunt, son:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Tone_argument

The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.

The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.

Sorry, el grande sacko del crapo, you can consider the calling of your batshit the result of trying to reassert my autonomy in the face of your attempt to control me, if you really can't bear to wear the shoe that fits you so snug.

@ #2203
"... el grande sacko del crapo ..."

Yet another example of the science you represent.

Well, eric, you got the nonanswer from teabaggie. "I will give no opinion and just complain about others' I don't agree with". Again.

So totally not answering you.

You could try again while he sulks over how mean science is because I say rude words. He may be more willing to answer you now. Persistence will be required, though.

As Ethan says: "The other is to use God as a placeholder for any presently unknown or unexplained phenomenon. A “God of the gaps.” What a small God to have! A God that can be (and likely will be) squeezed out into non-existence simply by discovering more about the natural Universe is a God that is just screaming to be disproved. Indeed, a great many Gods (and stories about Gods) have been scientifically disproved in exactly this fashion, although proof is not necessarily enough for its believers"

I guess he doesn't accept a god of the ever unreachable gap in science, teabaggie.

Odd how you only selectively quote him. Just like you did eric when he tried to converse with you. Seems like rudeness is just an excuse you use.

BUSTED!

"where he wasn’t just a whining kid"

A point of interest: why "He"???

I'm quite satisfied how this thread has resolved.

And here’s Bill Nye, discussing the question of God, “You can’t know.” (00:18)
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/22/bill-nye-on-belief-in-god_n_46…

That seems like a reasonable, honest attitude to me.
Mr. Nye’s opinion was expressed in only three words, “You can’t know.” (00:18), but in the absence of any corroborating evidence, both quotes refer back to the same position: Science cannot prove the existence of God.

And there's you talking the same old bullshit again you fruitloop moron. No mind of your own, you have been completely busted and you're just talking complete ant utter bollocks to soak the shit out of your head onto the internet like the retard you are.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Even your deletion of the bullshit this disgusting little shitbag doesn't stop him.

BAN THE FUCKWIT.

Our blogger, Dr. Siegel, has explained that Science will never know everything about the natural world, much less a supernatural one. That clearly relates the question he posed above.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

Still no evidence to support the hypothesis that Science can prove the existence of God. Without evidence, what Science can say honestly about the thread topic is severely limited.

Ethan block this shithead, if you keep him here, he’ll only clog every thread with his shitposting. And if it’s monetising this site, then you’re making a mockery of this site, your work and science.

Even if this is some feculant retard whose daddy owns part of the site and whose only care is to troll the shit to get postcounts up again, letting him post makes SWAB meaningless.

And his repeats merely cement the fact the moron has no clue and doesn’t want to get one. His head is filled with the shit he spews everywhere.

Our host has been quite clear about the limits of scientific knowledge, “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.”

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/02/10/why-science-wil…

If, as Ethan suggests, scientific knowledge about the natural world is finite, and the natural world has no known limits, then it is unrealistic to expect Science to prove the existence of a supernatural entity?

In the absence of any, much less any corroborating evidence, Science appears to be unable to prove that God exists.

Since the supernatural only exists in the minds of (mortals), of course, science cannot prove or disprove the existence of a god other than in the mind of a psychotic patient by a psychiatrist.
END of STORY.

PJ, that's just irrelevant to the hypothetical question this thread is about. It presumes that god DOES exist and therefore can ASK that question. If you presume it doesn't exist, the question is meaningless.

If you want to see psychotic religiosity, look at teabaggie.

Still lying about what others have said and now so bereft of thought all they have is a repeat cutnpaste of the same old debunked shit because teabaggie CAN NOT STAND being wrong.

Indeed, for Science is in part a methodology that plays itself out on the stage of the mind. “The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven..”
―John Milton, Paradise Lost

Can science prove the existence of God?

Once I stopped breathing for over ten minutes, was in the hospital in a coma for ten days, and awoke.

"Why is everyone looking at me?" I asked.

"you were in a coma for ten days. We thought you'd never wake up..." my mom told me. "How do you feel?"

"Very well rested, thank you."

"Do you know who the president is?" the doctor asked me.

"Yes of course... Bush. No, I mean Obama." I answered correctly.

"Well this is amazing," the doctor said. "It seems you have your wits fully about you, but to be fair statistically you shouldn't be able to talk or remember anything by now.

He asked me to get up and walk around the room. I was able to without an issue.

"You might feel dizzy for awhile or perhaps for the rest of your life. Do you feel dizzy at all?"

"Nope," I told him.

I thank God quite often for that miraculous return to full function. It's not our will that puts events in motion, it is God's will. I am reminded of that often and whenever I watch Wow struggle to support his frail ego by spouting the admonitions of someone lost in the struggle to emphasize the importance of self-will.

Science is cool! But not the kind of proof I need. Is this off-topic? Do I need to sprinkle insults into my statements to feel important here? Maybe troll endlessly and never do a single charitable productive thing with my useless superficial life? Nope.

Yeah, that was not a real story, bro. Superman came back from the dead and he wasn't supposed to have lived.

I don't give a rats ass what proof you want, you're going to make believe whatever you want because you're really not worrying about reality, only your feelings.

Frail fucking ego my arse. I'm not the one who needs to make believe in an imaginary friend to make me feel like I'm worth something.

You'll fuck away the only live you will ever have because you hope like shit you get a do-over next time.

Fucking pitiful.

Sørce,

“… Do I need to sprinkle insults into my statements to feel important here? …”
Only those who have nothing to say feel the need to do so. Empty barrels, etc.

Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, commenting about science’s inability to prove or disprove the existence of God, had this to say, “… To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth million time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists …”
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_darwin-on-trial.html

That’s a very rational position for a scientist to adopt, and one I find persuasive. In the absence of any corroborating evidence, Science appears to be unable to prove that God exists.

Since we can say whatever we like here and Wow can run his mouth and there's no moderation, here is a funny song about God and the Power of God.

God would appreciate it, he has a sense of humor- Duck-billed platypi, dinosaurs had feathers and their closest relative is a chicken? Oh God, you slay me. We're gonna laugh it up so good in the actual life that this one is encased within.

Wow, quit playing the Devil's Advocate, you got the job.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DT5VQfvDvy4

Well teabaggie gets away with it, so why should I limit myself, hmm?

PS there is no god. That voice in your head is just you. And if you think it's someone else, you're slightly insane. There's no god. There's no devil. There's this life and idiots like you are wasting it worrying about getting a good second go.

God is just your survival instinct going apeshit and getting things wrong. It's not a superpowerful uberbeing who just "happens" to believe what you already believed.

It's when you think your voice in your head is the voice for everyone that you become able to behead people for not listening to that voice in your noggin.

No difference between you and ISIS except you have to live with people who don't believe in your god and you're no longer allowed to kill them.

Sørce,

“ ... Is this off-topic? ..."

As you can see from the posts here from a special individual that are empty of everything except invective, trying to relate one's comments to the thread topic "Can science prove the existence of God?" is often an afterthought. Still, it's encouraging that you are one of the commenters who are sensitive to that ideal.

Fuckoff you retarded little shitstain. Oh, I swear, but I don't fucking lie, unlike you you ignorant twat.

Fucking christians like you need to die off and leave the planet to the sane people. Just fuck off and die already. You really look forward to that.

You fucking miserable lying cunt.

Empty cans, John, empty cans .....

You sound really whiny, source, are you sure you want to be remembered as the whiny little fartknocker who had imaginary friends and made fake shit up on the internet on your deathbed?

You seem to not know what angry is by the way. Probably because you're too much of a wimp and a coward to deal with reality so have to fake it to match your pissant egotism.

Don't worry, I shall sacrifice a goat to Baal that he eat your heart out when you die. Should stop you roasting in a lake of fire, eh, so your quids in, right!

Sørce,

@ #2228: Yes, that does seem apt, although that tantrum-thrower doesn't have quite as foul a mouth. Perhaps it's an age thing.

PJ,

Empty cans it is. Sorry about that.

Here's another comment from Ethan that's relevant to the topic, "... Whenever we seek to answer a question, scientifically, it demands that we gather new data, make new observations or perform new experiments ..."

http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2017/03/05/comments-of-the-week…

In the absence of any corroborating evidence, Science appears to be unable to prove that God exists.