yguy

This is not a basis for asking for proof, it is a criterion for proof that you would find acceptable. Not what I'm asking for.

You just got through telling me that scientists are able to admit whent they're wrong. That ain't you.

Uh huh. There's no possibility He's doing something the effects of which you don't know about.

Right.

Clutch

Shouldn't you get to it, then? All you've exposed so far is the depth of your sophomorism and the poverty of your knowledge.

Hawkingfan

And your basis for asking me for a basis is...?
And the basis you know that that ain't me is...?
And your belief that the possibility is high that he's doing any effect whatsoever is...?

yguy

That your logic contradicts itself and you won't admit it.

It's not a possiblity. It's a certainty.

Hawkingfan

And you know this how...?
Is is certain that J/C god exists, or Allah exists? Or is it certain they both exist?

yguy

You demand objective proof of God's existence on one hand, and demand to be judge and jury over which evidence is worthy of consideration on the other. Blatant intellectual hypocrisy.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Mageth

I didn't say there was no evidence, I said you have no direct knowledge of it. If you see a picture of me, have you seen me?

So where's your "direct knowledge" of god? I'd say that the images of electron trails from a collider experiment are pretty convincing evidence that electrons exist. By seeing them, I can claim to have seen sufficient evidence (even if indirect) of an electron to justifiably conclude they exist.

Where's even a picture or other "indirect" evidence of god that equals that evidence?

yguy

Everywhere you look.

But you don't look. You name. You analyze. You categorize and catalogue. Therefore you do not see.

Hawkingfan

Not true. Anyway, you believe in something without any objective evidence at all and lash out ad hominems at people who don't buy your belief simply because they find that belief unreasonable.
You can't answer it anyway.

Philosoft

It's not much of one. Are you familiar with "parsimony"?

Psychological trick? Scientists are magicians now? This still sounds like a mass-delusion claim. You know, it's not exactly a trade secret that the reason probabilities and confidence intervals are used is that it's generally unfeasable to test a theory in every planck-sized region of space-time, or whatever variable you care to insert. I'm sorry you are so upset about it, but we really don't know the exact positions of the electrons flowing through the data bus in the computer you're using to accuse scientists of being liars.
Well there's your problem. What does "scientific consensus" have to do with the probability that Copernicus' model is an objectively correct representation of the solar system? In any case, Copernicus' theory is still falsifiable. All it takes is one verifiably aberrant data point and you know something is wrong.