INDISPUTABLE Rational Proof That God Exists (Or Existed)

[Revoltingest]

Well I disagree to some extant with that, but the only thing I am relying on cosmology for is to establish the universe is finite.

But that is far from established.
Moreover, there is even speculation about which kind of "infinite" the universe could be.
Is the observable universe infinite in size?
Is it infinite continuously or in discrete increments?
Is it one of infinitely many universes?
Is this collection of an infinite number of infinite universes a "universe" itself?
Too much is unknown & perhaps even unknowable to say what the fundamental nature of the universe is.

Philosophy and reality is what illuminates the rest. The big contention within this argument has been the steady state or Eternal universe versus the finite universe because everybody knows things that begin to exist have a cause. Finally the issue is getting close to being conclusively established as a finite nature to the universe. The rest is simple deduction except for the final step and it is perfectly reasonable itself.

No one has conclusively established any such thing.
If our observable universe is "finite" in some sense, then perhaps it's still just the result of
interaction of a couple branes, which could be infinite in size & number. No one knows.
http://physics.about.com/od/physicsatod/g/brane.htm

 

[Sir Doom]

My illogic is irrefutable!

Does this mean your logic is totally futed?

 

[Ouroboros]

My illogic is irrefutable!

It should be entered into the big Dsylixecon or the Encyclepodia of Uncommon Phrasis and Inglish Grandmar.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does this mean your logic is totally futed?

Perhaps I should've said my irlogic is ilfutable.

 

[1robin]

Exactly my point!

Actually that was almost a good joke. I will ruminate on it's humor factor later. However it has no bearing or influence on this discussion.

1. I am not defending or submitting the generic definition for the concept of a "God".
2. I did not invent the characteristics of the God I am defending. They were recorded thousands of years before anyone would have had any idea what needed to be faked in order to satasfy the cosmological argument.
3. This is independant convergent confirmation and is a tool to establish the probability for the reliability of a concept.

 

[PolyHedral]

This is so nonsensical it has no known exception and is taught as true in every school with a philosophy dept

Do they have a proof? And I mean an actual proof - an inductive argument doesn't hold muster.

If matter exists and is continuous then time is linear and only its rate may vary.

You don't know enough physics to know what you just said makes no sense. What would matter being continuous mean? What would "its rate" be?

Why is it you think claims like this about what happened 14.9 billion years ago, billions of light years away, and dealing with forces we can't comprehend let alone understand is more reliable than anything a pure guess.

You're the one asserting that it was the same as it is now. You have no basis to make that assertion on, and I have every ground to say it's wrong.

Scientists can't cure cancer, they build bridges that ripple like accordions, dams that fail, space shuttles that blow up, and can't predict the weather over 48 hours in advance accurately yet they know exactly what happened 10^-43 seconds after the big bang.

Yep. Turns out, some problems are counter intuitively difficult. Others are surprisingly easy.

My claims are very simple and easily can be seen to apply to everything and have no known exceptions. They are not complex sounding guesses wrapped up in a scientific terminology wrapper and declared to be a theory.

The keyword has been highlighted for you. They are also hopelessly vague, unhelpful, and unreliable. You're denying that (metaphorical) black swans can possibly exist, when we both know you have checked only the tiniest fraction of existing swans.

Where did you get this gem anyway?

It's obvious when you know what happens at a black hole's event horizon - space and time swap places. In a space even more twisted, who knows what happens? Hawking even proposed that the time-like dimension becomes space-like, i.e. there is no longer any time, and the Big Bang was a short distance away from the beginning of time.

This was not a logical counter argument, it was a hyperbolic hail Mary guess of unknown applicability even if true.

From your response, I'm going to guess it was too logical. This is cutting-edge, 21st century physics we're dealing with here - leave all your assumptions about how time, space and reality work at the door.

Unlike the theoretical, grant hungry, camera hog guesticians, my family has to produce things that work and the tremendous fallability of science is obvious in those cases, unlike the theoguessical community.

You ever worked in particle physics?

 

[Alceste]

This post is diametrically opposed to most modern cosmology. Please see my response to the post you mentioned. Again let me restate the argument all but proves that a being that has Biblical God like qualities is a necessary source for what we see in reality however saying it is therefore the Judeao Christian God is not an absolute, only a logical conclusion.

I really can't be bothered to reread the OP or find your reply to it. I've heard the argument a million times before. It goes:

Premise: Nothing comes from nothing.
Conclusion: Therefore, there must have been something before the existence of everything.
Conclusion: That something coincidentally happens to be the exact same ideation of God that I already believed in before I started trying to use reason to explain why. What a surprise!

The trouble is, your premise is far too weak to draw ANY conclusions from, let alone the huge leaps and bounds you make from there to the two conclusions above. In fact, this argument disproves itself, even before God enters into it, because the first conclusion you are drawing completely contradicts the only premise.

Please, for the love of God, you simply can not make this horrifically shabby reasoning any more coherent by adding extra words to it, so don't try on my behalf.

This is not reasoning, this is rationalization. You should simply embrace the fact that faith is irrational. Lots of wonderful things are completely irrational. My love for my husband, the way we are transported and transformed by beauty, the way we feel we can communicate with our pets... There's nothing wrong with irrationality. Faith is the dominion of the heart, not the head. You need to let go.

 

[Revoltingest]

Actually that was almost a good joke. I will ruminate on it's humor factor later. However it has no bearing or influence on this discussion.
1. I am not defending or submitting the generic definition for the concept of a "God".
2. I did not invent the characteristics of the God I am defending. They were recorded thousands of years before anyone would have had any idea what needed to be faked in order to satasfy the cosmological argument.

But there are many definitions of a "god", & you select one from the menu.
Still, where is the logical proof for the existence of a god based upon sound premises?

3. This is independant convergent confirmation and is a tool to establish the probability for the reliability of a concept.

Where is the convergence?

 

[1robin]

Do they have a proof? And I mean an actual proof - an inductive argument doesn't hold muster.

Inductive arguments are used in every field of endeavor in existence. I will agree that their conclusions are not absolute fact but when combined with an almost limitless stream of independent reasoning that arrives at the same conclusion more than enough to justify faith. What is known is that the precept has no known exception.

You don't know enough physics to know what you just said makes no sense. What would matter being continuous mean? What would "its rate" be?

You have no idea how much physics I have. In fact I can’t remember how much I have had myself. I have had all that is required to acquire an engineering degree and then some incl stats, dynamics etc.... However none is needed to know that time that has fits and reverses is pure guess work. In fact time's unavoidable direction is proven by thermodynamics. That is why 2LOT is called times arrow. Talking with anyone who posits concepts like a reversal of time or the suspension of time in domains that require durations and have sequential (in time) events just makes me tired. The only two concepts known to affect time at all are gravity and velocity and neither affect its direction of existence (only rate).

You're the one asserting that it was the same as it is now. You have no basis to make that assertion on, and I have every ground to say it's wrong.

I did not say it was the same. I said it was linear. It's speed may very well have ebbed and accelerated but it's direction has been constant.

Yep. Turns out, some problems are counter intuitively difficult. Others are surprisingly easy.

All of the mistakes I submitted are or should be intuitive to a scientist except maybe cancer but that was not the point. If we can't overcome the problems of today that exist before our eyes your suggestion that you have got time at a point billions of years ago all figured out is absurd. If you can't build a bird house correctly do not expect anyone to believe you can build a tower to the moon. The key issue here is that when all the scientists who are wrong about time the bird house does not fall off the pole. They quietly forget that theory and invent a new one based on a new guess that will probably turn out to be wrong. These theorists have no report card and are free to invent things as fast as grant money allows them to do so.

The keyword has been highlighted for you. They are also hopelessly vague, unhelpful, and unreliable. You're denying that (metaphorical) black swans can possibly exist, when we both know you have checked only the tiniest fraction of existing swans.

I thought black swans did exist. All though I am as unfamiliar with swans as scientists are with what time was doing at the big bang. I did not say that it is impossible that effects arise without causes. I said we have no exception to the rule. That is the definition of what makes a law a law. Of course this one is denied law status because of its inconvenience factor.

It's obvious when you know what happens at a black hole's event horizon - space and time swap places. In a space even more twisted, who knows what happens? Hawking even proposed that the time-like dimension becomes space-like, i.e. there is no longer any time, and the Big Bang was a short distance away from the beginning of time.

No one knows what happens at a black hole. Is Hawking's God. Hawking's collaborator said of his M-theory (or maybe his multiverse crap) that it was an excuse for not having a good theory. My boss worked under a collaberator with Hawking's M-theory and my boss (not that guy) said it was a catch all for science fiction. All of these people operate over my head but I do not feel as uncomfortable about the integrity of anyone of them on either side as with Hawking's and Dawkins. Maybe I have some hang up about the phonetics of their names. I do not agree with many but do not trust those two. The double standards of suggesting the fact that all known effects have causes is a ineffective predictor of the past and then suggesting we let the science fiction world of how physics is claimed to operate around black holes is truly remarkable. I may very well be wrong but it appears that some people get mesmerized by these fantastical claims to some extent that they do not merit. In short I think neither you nor anyone accurately knows anything detailed enough about black holes or time to a level that can even make an argument fractionally as valid as the cosmological argument I laid out and is as valid today as in Plato's day. Judgeing from the fact that history is replete with a majority of failures espacially concerning the fantastic end of things I am very very skeptical. That is nothing out of bounds about failure in compplex endevors but when used as an argument against things that have no exceptions there is.

From your response, I'm going to guess it was too logical. This is cutting-edge, 21st century physics we're dealing with here - leave all your assumptions about how time, space and reality work at the door.

I will grant you something. When I was in school I used to go listen to lectures from our and other university professors and I became discussed with the inconsistency and self-contradiction they exhibited. My entire family are engineers (one in NASA, the rest DOD) and a common joke at family gatherings is what stupid thing a theoretical guy dreamed up and cost billions to find out it did not work so I am prejudiced against theoretical people in general. My Dad was a drawing checker with 40 yrs. experience with Apollo etc.... Every day he used to tell me what stupid thing a PhD thought would work in theory but blew up in testing. In fact I am disgusted by them often but agree that the effort should be made but the hubris and arrogance is appalling.

You ever worked in particle physics?

Nope. I was informed the other day that I am not allowed to state what I do in any chat room or site like this. Which I think is stupid (or a good policy that I slightly disagree with, in case anyone is listening). I however will say that my job exists only to rectify mistakes made by scientists and engineers in state of the art DOD equip, and business is a booming. At least until our CIS people read this or our president shuts us down so he can pay for one of his 2 billion free health care promises. In fact I might will be stopped before I can fini...........

 

[1robin]

But there are many definitions of a "god", & you select one from the menu.
Still, where is the logical proof for the existence of a god based upon sound premises?

Where is the convergence?

That is true and I had conceded that, many posts back. However most can be dismissed because they claim their God (s) created something from something else which is not what cosmology indicates. In fact I know of no other concept of God that suggests it created from nothing but there may be some. I have voluntarily limited my claims to the cosmological argument because at least six people balked at it. The inexhaustable additional lines of reasoning that lead to God's likely existance will have to wait the termination of this one for me anyway. I am pulled six ways from Sunday at the moment (whatever that means).

 

[Sir Doom]

Perhaps I should've said my irlogic is ilfutable.

You just need to unrelogic your reunfutations.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Belief in god(s) all comes down to faith. If one doesn't have enough wisdom or honesty to realize and admit this, all the rationalizations, circular arguments, and logical fallacies in the world won't change this fact. On top of that, you're also missing the point of belief.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is true and I had conceded that, many posts back. However most can be dismissed because they claim their God (s) created something from something else which is not what cosmology indicates. In fact I know of no other concept of God that suggests it created from nothing but there may be some.
I have voluntarily limited my claims to the cosmological argument because at least six people balked at it.

Cosmology doesn't address anything about gods, their creation, or their definition.
Moreover, I urge great care in using scientific beliefs as premises because they're subject to continual change as history shows.

The inexhaustable additional lines of reasoning that lead to God's likely existance will have to wait the termination of this one for me anyway. I am pulled six ways from Sunday at the moment (whatever that means).

Yeah, it can be daunting to reply to all the posters who respond, especially when that inconvenient life in the real world distracts us.

 

[1robin]

Cosmology doesn't address anything about gods, their creation, or their definition.

Moreover, I urge great care in using scientific beliefs as premises because they're subject to continual change as history shows.

I think you are hitting my comments in this issue mid-stream. I have attempted to show that cosmology gets us to a universe that appeared out of nothing and is need of a cause. Philosophic principles that have no know exception illustrate the characteristics that that cause must have. Theology plus about a thousand other issues make my identification of the specific (God like) cause to be the Judeo Christian God. The last theological statement, I have said is not unavoidable and not part of the argument proper, however is a very reasonable conclusion for many reasons only a few of which I mention here. In fact it may be the only candidate known at this time. It is funny because I get one atheist who thinks modern science knows full well exactly what the nature of time was 10^-43 after the big bang. You on the other hand caution me against the waywardness of science. I will say I am closer to your position than his, but the atheist comunity sometimes seems schozophrenic in their argumentation against God. He is too hot and too cold. Too violent and too passive etc.......

Yeah, it can be daunting to reply to all the posters who respond, especially when that inconvenient life in the real world distracts us.

Well I got mad and simply broke the stupid thing that I could not make work so I have a little free time until something else angers me by acting in ways that scientists and engineers never envisioned nor intended.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you are hitting my comments in this issue mid-stream. I have attempted to show that cosmology gets us to a universe that appeared out of nothing and is need of a cause.

That view is just one of many in cosmology. Moreover, it's a view which speaks to how thing appear, while tacitly
admitting that we don't know what led up to the big bang. We don't know what laws governed the singularity,
or what circumstances led to it. To say it "appeared out of nothing" is just a layman's way of saying that what
we observe appeared to come from an infinitesimally small singularity.

Philosophic principles that have no know exception illustrate the characteristics that that cause must have. Theology plus about a thousand other issues make my identification of the specific (God like) cause to be the Judeo Christian God. The last theological statement, I have said is not unavoidable and not part of the argument proper, however is a very reasonable conclusion for many reasons only a few of which I mention here. In fact it may be the only candidate known at this time. It is funny because I get one atheist who thinks modern science knows full well exactly what the nature of time was 10^-43 after the big bang.

Might be right...might be wrong...but still doesn't address what happened before or at moment zero.
Remember that if an atheist or scientist says something, it ain't necessarily so.
Chess club sized brains & many letters after one's name don't prevent hubris & error.

You on the other hand caution me against the waywardness of science. I will say I am closer to your position than his, but the atheist comunity sometimes seems schozophrenic in their argumentation against God. He is too hot and too cold. Too violent and too passive etc.......

Atheists are a diverse group. Don't trust us.

Well I got mad and simply broke the stupid thing that I could not make work so I have a little free time until something else angers me by acting in ways that scientists and engineers never envisioned nor intended.

Been there & done that!

 

[1robin]

That view is just one of many in cosmology. Moreover, it's a view which speaks to how thing appear, while tacitly
admitting that we don't know what led up to the big bang. We don't know what laws governed the singularity,
or what circumstances led to it. To say it "appeared out of nothing" is just a layman's way of saying that what
we observe appeared to come from an infinitesimally small singularity.

I disagree and so does the latest cosmology. The eternal universe concept is on it's way out. It actually has so many self-contradicting properties it should never have been in to begin with. If you are not aware of these unresolvable problems with an eternal universe I will be more than happy to clutter your brain with a few. The trend of cosmology is definitely in the finite direction and the pendulum is I believe approaching the no return point. Of course almost no one claims that something came from nothing, because it is a ridiculous concept. I will illustrate the impact of this by what it has produced. When the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe theorem pretty much nailed the coffin shut there was a big big problem for atheistic scientists. They had a universe that required a cause and no nature to generate one. That unavoidably made the super natural a logical necessity to the extent that only fantasy and science fiction could remedy their bizarre hopes. That is why an explosion in multiverse, M-theory, and oscillating verses has recently skyrocketed (string theory might be thrown in as well). There is not a scrap of evidence for any of them and even worse not even a potentiality for any. Yet that was the only course (true or even logical or not) that got them out of the cosmological inevitability they were in. If you suggest that something other than unbelief drove that (I agree that is a presumptuous claim) then why is the adoption of those theories so prevalent among non-believers. The double standards kill me. When galaxies are found to not have enough matter in them to hold them together a miraculous dark matter that can't be seen or detected by anything (and is virtually supernatural) is simply claimed to be there as a fact yet God is not allowed to even be considered for creation. The thought process is baffling without another Biblical concept called spiritual blindness. I agree that God is not a proven fact but many "facts" of science require more faith given less evidence.

Might be right...might be wrong...but still doesn't address what happened before or at moment zero.

The cosmological argument makes the process virtually irrelevant. You are basically saying if a supernatural event can't be described by natural process it does not exist. Nothing along these lines has a natural explanation. No matter what happened it had no potentiality in nature because nature did not exist prior to the event. It is by necessity non natural and therefore super natural.

Remember that if an atheist or scientist says something, it isn’t necessarily so.
Chess club sized brains & many letters after one's name don't prevent hubris & error.

That is the beauty of the argument. It makes all pie in the sky theories irrelevant. Every step in the argument has no known exception. If you prefer to hold out for an unknown instead of God that is a preference not a deduction and you have the perfect right to hold it. I just ask that it is portrayed as such. I admit that even though my conclusion is infinitely more reasonable it is still a faith based conclusion.

Atheists are a diverse group. Don't trust us.

That is the one argument I will never contend. I will add that I do trust your sincerety.

Been there & done that!

I find it almost ironic that my business exists for the sole reason that scientists are not reliable, and as I say business is a booming. That is until Obama fixes it until he breaks it.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree and so does the latest cosmology. The eternal universe concept is on it's way out. It actually has so many self-contradicting properties it should never have been in to begin with. If you are not aware of these unresolvable problems with an eternal universe I will be more than happy to clutter your brain with a few. The trend of cosmology is definitely in the finite direction and the pendulum is I believe approaching the no return point. Of course almost no one claims that something came from nothing, because it is a ridiculous concept. I will illustrate the impact of this by what it has produced. When the Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin’s Past-Finite Universe theorem pretty much nailed the coffin shut there was a big big problem for atheistic scientists. They had a universe that required a cause and no nature to generate one. That unavoidably made the super natural a logical necessity to the extent that only fantasy and science fiction could remedy their bizarre hopes. That is why an explosion in multiverse, M-theory, and oscillating verses has recently skyrocketed (string theory might be thrown in as well). There is not a scrap of evidence for any of them and even worse not even a potentiality for any. Yet that was the only course (true or even logical or not) that got them out of the cosmological inevitability they were in. If you suggest that something other than unbelief drove that (I agree that is a presumptuous claim) then why is the adoption of those theories so prevalent among non-believers. The double standards kill me. When galaxies are found to not have enough matter in them to hold them together a miraculous dark matter that can't be seen or detected by anything (and is virtually supernatural) is simply claimed to be there as a fact yet God is not allowed to even be considered for creation.

Actually dark matter can be detected. Moreover, the very reason it was hypothesized is the basis for detection,
ie, that it has mass & consequent gravitational effects. And because it can be detected, it can even be mapped.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes
What is it? I have no idea other than it is something with the property of mass.
Does it's mysterious behavior make it supernatural? I see no reason to presume that.

The thought process is baffling without another Biblical concept called spiritual blindness. I agree that God is not a proven fact but many "facts" of science require more faith given less evidence.

The cosmological argument makes the process virtually irrelevant. You are basically saying if a supernatural event can't be described by natural process it does not exist.

In my experience, natural processes are the most useful explanations, since they enable us to use technology &
describe how the natural world behaves. Magical thought just doesn't have that explanatory & predictive value.
I won't tell you there isn't a god. But I will say that "God did it" is a model of the material world which can't be
used to design drugs, rockets, genes, computers, satellites, engines, etc. It isn't possible to prove there is no god.
And if it can't be falsified, as Wolfgan Pauli might say, it's not right...it's not even wrong.

Nothing along these lines has a natural explanation. No matter what happened it had no potentiality in nature because nature did not exist prior to the event. It is by necessity non natural and therefore super natural.

That is the beauty of the argument. It makes all pie in the sky theories irrelevant. Every step in the argument has no known exception. If you prefer to hold out for an unknown instead of God that is a preference not a deduction and you have the perfect right to hold it. I just ask that it is portrayed as such. I admit that even though my conclusion is infinitely more reasonable it is still a faith based conclusion.

It would be above my pay grade to discuss the specifics of any cosmological theories, so I dwell only upon simple things
which make sense on the surface. (I used to do kalculuss, but now I can't even spell it.) I see many untested & perhaps
ultimately untestable theories in physics/cosmology. And if they cannot be tested, to use any as premises in a logical
argument for the existence of God would prove nothing.

That is the one argument I will never contend. I will add that I do trust your sincerety.

It is the proffering of "truth" in science which I'd counsel you to doubt.

I find it almost ironic that my business exists for the sole reason that scientists are not reliable, and as I say business is a booming. That is until Obama fixes it until he breaks it.

Scientists are reliable if one is realistic about what is relied upon.
But they are human, & the scientific method is hit & miss, so there will be error.

 

[Alceste]

Belief in god(s) all comes down to faith. If one doesn't have enough wisdom or honesty to realize and admit this, all the rationalizations, circular arguments, and logical fallacies in the world won't change this fact. On top of that, you're also missing the point of belief.

Completely sums it up. Clap clap clap clap clap.

 

[1robin]

Actually dark matter can be detected. Moreover, the very reason it was hypothesized is the basis for detection,
ie, that it has mass & consequent gravitational effects. And because it can be detected, it can even be mapped.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes
What is it? I have no idea other than it is something with the property of mass.
Does it's mysterious behavior make it supernatural? I see no reason to presume that.

Hold the phone. Dark matter has never been detected. From your own link:
Dark matter has never been directly detected, but its presence is felt through its gravitational pull on normal matter. Scientists suspect dark matter is made of some exotic particle that doesn't interact with regular atoms.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=biggest-map-yet-of-universes
I have no problem with dark matter. It probably does exist. The claim I made is that it is not directly detected but only known through its effects and it is only an inferred source. That is exactly the same as God. Yet one is accepted and one denied. Jesus told Nicodemus he must be born of the spirit. Nicodemus said what spirit? Jesus said do not marvel, the spirit can be detected the same way the wind can (dark matter) by its effects. You are supposing dark matter exists because of it's effects yet deny God in spite of his effects.

In my experience, natural processes are the most useful explanations, since they enable us to use technology &
describe how the natural world behaves. Magical thought just doesn't have that explanatory & predictive value.
I won't tell you there isn't a god. But I will say that "God did it" is a model of the material world which can't be
used to design drugs, rockets, genes, computers, satellites, engines, etc. It isn't possible to prove there is no god.
And if it can't be falsified, as Wolfgan Pauli might say, it's not right...it's not even wrong.

This reminds me of one of Dawkins famous anti-reason comments. He said so what if God did it. We can't do any science with that. God does not exist to make provide science with something to do. If God created the universe then that is what happened whether that clears up a single scientific question or not. It if true in fact does clear up many questions but in a way that does not allow a scientist to collect grant money but it is no less true because of that. God by definition would act in ways that science can't evaluate.

It would be above my pay grade to discuss the specifics of any cosmological theories, so I dwell only upon simple things
which make sense on the surface. (I used to do kalculuss, but now I can't even spell it.) I see many untested & perhaps
ultimately untestable theories in physics/cosmology. And if they cannot be tested, to use any as premises in a logical
argument for the existence of God would prove nothing.

You just presented dark matter as a reasonable conclusion yet when it comes to God choke on any uncertainty. I do not know why but inconsistencies are showing up like scarlet flags today. The theorem that shows the universe to be finite is very simple at its core. Of course it contains advanced information but the concept is very very simple and intuitive.

It is the proffering of "truth" in science which I'd counsel you to doubt.

I am sure I have told you the story of how G.K. Chesterton lost his "faith” in atheism. He said it was impossible for God to be all those self-contradictory atheistic claims. I would add that it is impossible for all those self-contradictory arguments for atheism to add up to a true conclusion. You say distrust one of teh simplest theorems of cosmology because it posits God. Yet your compatriots suggest the adoption of the most obscure and fantastic science fiction imaginable if it allows the possibility of plausible deniability of God. I say the atheistic arguments cancel each other out and equal a net zero. How about that theory?

Scientists are reliable if one is realistic about what is relied upon.

But they are human, & the scientific method is hit & miss, so there will be error.

I would be much happier if the science used against God ever met the scientific method at all.

 

[1robin]

Completely sums it up. Clap clap clap clap clap.

Belief in God requires faith. Now that is one heck of an Earth shattering discovery. I expect to see the founder of this break through concept on time magazine shortly. Science many times is based on more faith given less evidence than God requires but at least we admit the role of faith in our beliefs.