Proof of God page 11 (locked)

DR
I expressed my “double programming” opinion clearly.
I see no problem in using the “modding” where it is useful, while living by the “vanilla” instructions.
They DO NOT contradict each other.
I’m too tired to repeat it so many times…

Back to adding variables that are not suggested by evidence and claiming that they are just as likely as the stuff that we have evidence for…

EPR
They ARE supported by evidence, just not the type of evidence YOU chose to accept.
This I also explained, a couple times at least.
Everything is in a neat system, perfectly logical.
Except, you simply use another approach to the topic.
But so do I.
It’s normal, cause everyone does it.
And since there are basically only two possible approaches, they have two multitudes of separate-groups users.
And each group has its fanatics that deny the possibility that the other group might be right, or at least know something that they don’t know.
Again, BOTH groups.
But NOT ME.
I chose to COMBINE both approaches, like I explained – and then BOTH ideas can co-work perfectly: evolution explains how the world is now, while creation tells us how it came to be.
COMPATIBLE!

Just that one is simply not backed up by valid evidence in the scientific sense. This is the only one that really matters here, since it is what the OP asks for. If everyone uses his own definition for everything there would be no way to come to results that can be used to base future decisions on. This is what the scientific method is for. It makes sure that the claims that are most probable to be true are what is used to form working definitions to reduce the probability of using false definitions and making wrong decisions.
If you don’t want to use it personally, fine. But in this thread you constantly claim that your approach is just as valid as the scientific one. And the simple truth is that it is not.

EPR
Keep ignoring the piles of evidences (of all types, mostly physical and historical; also how what’s written nicely fits what’s supposed) I produced.
You’re good at being a fanatic.

Wow…
The irony…

Btw, I do want to remind you of the example I linked long ago, about the “polluted water agnosticism”.
In this case, it means that you don’t have “scientific” proof that the water is poisoned, but you have a “non-scientific” rumor about it.
It says that the water hurts only humans and only in 50% chance, but very dangerously and with a very delayed effect.
So, you can either ignore the possibility of being poisoned (rumor and 50% chance it’s false) or you don’t drink it.
Which is your choice?

In that case I have no evidence to work with and both results have a realistic chance of being true, since it is common knowledge that water can be poisoned and I don’t know where it is coming from.

A claim like a God is a lot different from that. Your example is not comparable to it.

EPR
And you KNOW that HOW?
Joking, it so obvious – spirituality doesn’t FIT into the materialistic picture you so relish and trust.
Not me, though.
End of discussion.

You’ve got something right for once Somebody613…spirituality can’t fit into materialism…not ‘materialism’ in the philosophical definition of the word. We agree on something.
But you see, science is materialism…science works with energy, matter, all things natural…science does not work with the supernatural.
I’m starting to believe that this thread I created is somewhat of a paradox, catch-22.
I don’t think (if there is a God) that he would be able to be proven scientifically…I do believe that the only way you can convince me that God exists is if the Almighty himself did come down and wag his finger at everybody. Would I be correct that you are hoping for the exact same thing?

You see, the only evidence you have been able to present to me is not scientific…it’s not even genuine evidence…it’s mainly written opinion, heresay, guessing and assumptions…plus a lot of circular logic thrown in.

FWW
I’m hoping for you to start reading…
I said 100% clear, WHY He’s NOT gonna do that.
And true, science works with matter – and does it pretty fine.
So why should it say anything on any topics BEYOND its reach?
And I presented you with genuine evidence, just not the type YOU want to see.
Even though I clearly said, you WON’T get that one – and I explained WHY.
“Guessing and assumptions, circular logic” – sounds like dinosaurs to me. :DDD

Ok, so lets sum this up once and for all…
You have no scientific evidence for the existence of your God.
Right?

That part about dinosaurs, please don’t, you have no understanding of science so it’s best to keep your thoughts to yourself unless you really want to look like an uneducated religious fanatic.

FWW
I KNOW why there is (currently) no “scientific” proof for G-d.
I explained it clearly.
The rest is your personal choice.
The same way it is mine too.

Ok great.
So the evidence that you do have are your religious texts and traditions.
Right?

FWW
What do you want from me?
And how come are you so stupid to not see that I’ve answered such questions endless times before?

Because you change what you say.
I’ve heard you before admit that you do have scientific evidence for the existence of your God..now you say don’t.
I just want everything nicely out in the open, where everybody can see where are you.

FWW
Learn to read.
1. I said and still say I have EVIDENCE – never said it was SCIENTIFIC.
2. DR is right, I should say that I don’t use the scientific method, in about every post – because of idiots like you.

No you should say scientific method in every post because idiots like you don’t read what the topic is about.
No one else had to meantion scientific evidence or the such, because we know what the thread was about…but some idiots…well…yeah some idiots just don’t understand.

FWW
The OP mentions THREE types of proof:
1. Totally personal (probably “spiritual”) like “in my heart”.
2. Basically “any proof you have”.
3. Scientific proof.
But the way it was presented, didn’t imply “according-to-science proof”.
Which is the difference between “scientific proof that is 100% based on accepted scientific premises” AND “objective real-life physical proof, even if it isn’t currently fully coherent with the accepted scientific view”.
Anyways, mine is the second type and the latter of the third type, so I still fit in.
Bye.

Originally posted by somebody613:

FWW
Learn to read.
1. I said and still say I have EVIDENCE – never said it was SCIENTIFIC.
2. DR is right, I should say that I don’t use the scientific method, in about every post – because of idiots like you.

Evidence :
1 facts or physical signs that help to prove something
2 facts, statements, or objects that help to prove whether or not someone has committed a crime

According to the definition above, you don’t have evidence… but you may have the proof.

Originally posted by somebody613:

FWW
The OP mentions THREE types of proof:
1. Totally personal (probably “spiritual”) like “in my heart”.
2. Basically “any proof you have”.
3. Scientific proof.
But the way it was presented, didn’t imply “according-to-science proof”.
Which is the difference between “scientific proof that is 100% based on accepted scientific premises” AND “objective real-life physical proof, even if it isn’t currently fully coherent with the accepted scientific view”.
Anyways, mine is the second type and the latter of the third type, so I still fit in.
Bye.

Somebody…actually read the OP again…it says NOT “I can feel him in my heart”.
Please, just read it…read it slowly. Then we’ll avoid making these mistakes.

I don’t have to even read through this thread to KNOW that all the religious peoples proof was is stuff like “the bible” or “insert name here said” or other things like that that aren’t even solid proof but just rumors and opinions. Christianity and other similar religions are supported more by faith rather then proof if you weren’t aware.

Well, that’s easy. All you have to do is look at a Bible. :)

Originally posted by createdforprayer:

Well, that’s easy. All you have to do is look at a Bible. :)

Great!
How is that evidence for the existence of God?

Originally posted by EPR89:

Originally posted by createdforprayer:

Well, that’s easy. All you have to do is look at a Bible. :)

Great!
How is that evidence for the existence of God?

I looked at the bible…and then I looked at some books by L R Hubbard…oh snail tails! They must both be proof of publishers!!!!