>You're the antagonist of this thread and also act as if there's proof for a god/s.
That is only in your mind.
I state "The only way to prove god doesn't exist by exclusion is to become a god."
If you can make a sound logical argument about how that is wrong I'm all ears.
>You can be wishy washy with your definition and have it fit in any way that science can't 100% disprove if you like, but still, I'll go with a reasonable assumption it's all bullshit.
Science rarely "proves" anything. They give an alternative model (sometimes several) with a far higher predictive rating. When you wash windows on skyscrapers it's wise to assume 9.8 meters per square seconds is a law write in stone. But to use the statistics on predictive models as absolute proof is thin ice indeed, since there are rare occasions where even existing religious doctrines have one-upped conventional science. By your definition that would constitute proof of the existence of god, which I would contest as well.
> Read the bible, quran, physics books, or by authors denying existence of a god such as Richard Dawkins and many others out there who are quite educated,
ad verecundiam
>and you'll realize, it's all bullshit. You're being herded up like a sheep and are treading on thin ice by putting your trust in religious text which are filled with so many logic holes.
The metaphysical concept of God is very far away from how people interpret religious texts. Please stop dragging unrelated matters into it.
>As for the bullshit about pi, yes, it is observed and described up to a certain amount of digits. Also, it's numbers. We're not disproving numbers here. That's a terrible argument.
No, I was making an example of how the plain intuitive idea that observation of something counts as proof is simply not true.
Formal proof makes things true, so the only science that works with truth so far is math. The rest of all scientists just take math and hammer that into a model that is applicable in the real world and judge the usefulness of that model by its predictive value.
>You'll pretty much see, wheresoever education lacks, there's more of the general populace which believes in mythical or supernatural entities which have no logical basis. Or the same things seem to be observed in patients that have attained head trauma.
>I used to be just as ignorant until I got educated also. I used to act pretentious too so as to put up a false front to disquise my ignorance since I was trying to fill logic holes which only made me seem like a dumbass if I didn't, at least, pretend I was literate.
So far your arguments are riddled with logical fallacies and strawmen.
I guess the idea of a faith that has science as one of its founding pillars is something that upsets your current system of believes that sees "science" and "religion" as a irreconcilable dichotomy.
You're a victim of historical beliefs.
>I know your story, been there, done that. It's old news now.
From what I've read so far I very much doubt that.