No scientific proof of god

[therhythm]

If God is "nature," why not just call it "nature?" We have scientific proof of nature, yes, but that does not prove that god is nature. Why call nature god?

 

The thing is that God is perceived by everyone in a singular way...even by those who don't believe on HIM... you need to define something to be able to reject the idea of its existence.

 

I know you love my quotes from Einstein so I will quote him once more to show you how people have their own concept of God...

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists" Albert Einstein

 

Nature can have many definitions and one of them can be God if someone decides to define God in that way .... I can't give you reasons on why someone would do that as I am not one of them but there are people who do

 

I'm not going to go through this (yet again) with you about why the atheist position is not a faith-based position. Google is your best friend, use it and you will find that atheism is not faith. I'm honestly tired of explaining it to you.

 

Yes, lets don't do that again, I am sorry I never finished my high school so I guess I should look pathetic to someone as bright as you are

 

 

Its "atheist," not "a-theist," too.

 

It was a miss spelling.... I am writing from my phone... Your really need to make this kind of points?

You know that disqualifying someone doesn't make you more right?

 

 

If there was evidence of a god, and that we live in a god-run universe, I'd accept that as the reality in which we live. It wouldn't require faith, which is, essentially, believing in something without evidence. Just as I accept evolution to be a reality, because of evidence, I'd be forced to concede that I'd accept god as a reality.

And how is this different in anyway of what I said??? :eek:

 

 

Pie2, what exactly are "fundamentalists scientists?"

 

There has been no fundamentalist scientist since Newton.

 

Ask her.. not me, I was only answering to her...

[pie2]

Pie2' date=' what exactly are "fundamentalists scientists?" [/quote']

 

I'm not sure. AtheistScholar mentioned it in her post. She said:

 

There has been no fundamentalist scientist since Newton. Christians don't like to hear that but it's true...

 

My guess is that she's referring to scientists who are followers of Christ? Hopefully she can clarify. Maybe she's referring to followers of any religion? Or does "fundamentalist" refer to more orthodox followers of a religion? If so, how do we exactly define "orthodox"? LOL...too many questions...sorry! :D

 

therhythm posted a great link to a (non-exhaustive) list of Christians who are scientists, including many who are alive today.

 

Though, scientist is a pretty broad term, imo. I think we're all scientists, in a way. Obviously, tests done in a lab try to eliminate as much error as possible. But we're all testing things, making deductions and finding patterns in life like trained scientists do, just on a less professional level.

 

So, with that definition of a scientist, I think there could be many 'fundamentalist scientists' .

[Robert Z]

If there was evidence of a god, and that we live in a god-run universe, I'd accept that as the reality in which we live. It wouldn't require faith, which is, essentially, believing in something without evidence.

 

Evidence is not proof. Belief based only on evidence is still a leap of faith. So you are saying that if one example of scientific evidence for the existence of a God can be produced, you'd be a believer? Any evidence at all?

 

Just as I accept evolution to be a reality, because of evidence, I'd be forced to concede that I'd accept god as a reality.

 

Do you accept every claim made by evolutionary biologists without question?

[Robert Z]

Though, scientist is a pretty broad term,

 

Being a scientist at a minimum refers to people who have college degrees in a scientific discipline. Among scientists it is debated about whether a degree itself is enough if the person isn't currently engaged in professional scientific research.

 

OTOH, an entomologist is a scientist but I doubt that being an expert at bugs gives him or her any uniquely qualified opinions about the existence of God. In fact, by definition science does not address the question of a deity. It is not even a scientific question as it implicitly assumes that powers beyond known science exist. Science depends on experimentation. There is nothing to experiment with so there is no science to be done.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

In addition to the definition of God, there is the definition of evidence. There are many forms of evidence with scientific evidence being by far the highest standard of all.

 

If scientific evidence were required in order to convict people of committing crimes, the prisons would be empty.

 

And if the courts were allowed to rule on questions of science, we would still be living in the dark ages.

[pie2]

Being a scientist at a minimum refers to people who have college degrees in a scientific discipline. Among scientists it is debated about whether a degree itself is enough if the person isn't currently engaged in professional scientific research.

 

OTOH, an entomologist is a scientist but I doubt that being an expert at bugs gives him or her any uniquely qualified opinions about the existence of God.

 

As you've pointed out, there is debate about which scientists and what research actually qualifies as accurate and valid. Nonetheless, Wiki states that a scientist is "one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge". We all do that, all the time. I do appreciate the great minds who a specialized scientists in specific fields. But I don't think they can really own the term scientist.

 

For example, over time and through trial and error, I've learned that eating too much ice cream can cause me to gain weight. Not a perfect scientific study by any means; my own little trial can't be generalized to all. But I've found something that appears pretty accurate in my own life through a pattern of "engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge." To me, that's quasi-scientific.

 

As laypeople, it's our own job to decide if the research we're going to believe in is credible or not. Just because we read a "study" by some "scientists" doesn't mean the data isn't riddled with bias and error.

[Robert Z]

As you've pointed out, there is debate about which scientists and what research actually qualifies as accurate and valid. Nonetheless, Wiki states that a scientist is "one engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge". We all do that, all the time. I do appreciate the great minds who a specialized scientists in specific fields. But I don't think they can really own the term scientist.

 

Wiki is not a scientific source. It is a popular belief site where anyone can post an answer.

 

For example, over time and through trial and error, I've learned that eating too much ice cream can cause me to gain weight. Not a perfect scientific study by any means; my own little trial can't be generalized to all. But I've found something that appears pretty accurate in my own life through a pattern of "engaging in a systematic activity to acquire knowledge." To me, that's quasi-scientific.

 

quasi-scientific is not science. It is play for amateurs.

 

As laypeople, it's our own job to decide if the research we're going to believe in is credible or not. Just because we read a "study" by some "scientists" doesn't mean the data isn't riddled with bias and error.

 

And to argue with experts in disciplines where you are not is crackpottery in the extreme. You are arguing for personal opinions, not science.

 

And no scientist considers one study proof of anything. When we talk about evidence, we are talking about many, many studies that are closely scrutinized over a long period of time.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Robert Z

[Robert Z]

This is why scientists must publish. Their methods and results must be available for the entire world to scrutinize for scientific errors [this does not include personal objections and opinions]. Einstein published his General Theory in 1915 but confidence in his theory only began to grow when very specific PREDICTIONS that it made were tested and found to be fantastically accurate.

 

And this is what non-scientists don't appreciate. Theories must make very specific predictions can be tested. This is what separates science from what you think is science.

[pie2]

Wiki is not a scientific source. It is a popular belief site where anyone can post an answer.

 

Maybe Merriam-Webster can help us define what a scientist is, based on the definition of science. The dictionary states that a scientist is "an investigator of science", which is the "systemized knowledge of an object of study". Says nothing about degrees or credibility.

 

quasi-scientific is not science. It is play for amateurs.

 

Quasi-experimental methods are used all the time, like in the social sciences. As the Wikipedia article mentions, it's not always practical to use "purist" randomized design methods in all studies; for example in public policy or educational interventions.

 

And to argue with experts in disciplines where you are not is crackpottery in the extreme. You are arguing for personal opinions, not science.

 

Well, I'm not sure if you misunderstood me. Basically, I was saying we shouldn't believe everything we read. Not all claims can be backed up with valid data.

Edited June 22, 2013 by pie2

[Robert Z]

Maybe Merriam-Webster can help us define what a scientist is, based on the definition of science. The dictionary states that a scientist is "an investigator of science", which is the "systemized knowledge of an object of study". Says nothing about degrees or credibility.

 

And assumed is that the scientific method is properly applied, which is almost certainly not true if a person hasn't had the proper training.

 

You gain weight every time you start eating ice cream. But you would need to have controls on every other area of your life to ensure that the weight gain is not simply coincidental. That you never mentioned this shows that it didn't even occur to you as critical. Correlation does not imply causation, but you said it did.

 

Quasi-experimental methods are used all the time, like in the social sciences. As the Wikipedia article mentions, it's not always practical to use "purist" randomized design methods in all studies; for example in public policy or educational interventions.

 

Ignoring the fact that sociology is a soft science, fair enough. I thought you were using the term generically. But it still doesn't show that you know the first thing about doing a proper quasi-scientific experiment. My initial objection still holds. One still requires the proper training in order to design a credible study.

 

Well, I'm not sure if you misunderstood me. Basically, I was saying we shouldn't believe everything we read. Not all claims can be backed up with valid data.

 

What I heard is that the average person is capable of discerning between good science and bad. That is false. And the notion makes me want to run screaming through the streets! If you want to know what is most likely to be correct, appeal to the general scientific consensus, not one report or study. The problem here is the media, not science. As I said, no scientist considers one study proof or even scientific evidence for anything.

 

But going back to the specific discussion about God, while there are certain points that might be debated about evolution, most objections are ludicrous. When one earns a degree in science, perhaps the most impressive aspect of everything learned is just how rigorous the scientific process is, but only over time. From one day to the next there is no way to know what to believe. But when a firm consensus forms over a long period of time, you can be sure that what science calls "evidence", most people would consider to be "proof".

 

For example, the best example... Quantum Mechanics has correctly predicted more than all other theories of science combined, it has been around since 1929, and it has NEVER been wrong, but it is still considered to be a theory.

Edited June 22, 2013 by Robert Z

[pie2]

You gain weight every time you start eating ice cream. But you would need to have controls on every other area of your life to ensure that the weight gain is not simply coincidental. That you never mentioned this shows that it didn't even occur to you as critical.

 

You're making an assumption about what did or did not occur to me...not very scientific of you, Robert Z :p:D.

 

My initial objection still holds. One still requires the proper training in order to design a credible study.

 

Proper training is definitely required to make a credible study that can be generalized to the whole population. No argument from me there.

 

My POV is that we all participate in non-credible studies of our own, all the time. I know you don't agree. You're definition of what constitutes science is different than mine.

 

The problem here is the media, not science.

 

Media can be a big problem!! . And "science" in and of itself isn't really a problem. It's our interpretation of the data that can cause confusion.

 

If you want to know what is most likely to be correct, appeal to the general scientific consensus, not one report or study.

 

Yes, I agree.

[TaxAHCruel]

The criteria of the scientific method, especially REPEATABILITY, cannot be satisfied in this example.

 

Of course it can. I think Repeatability is one of the more misunderstood aspects of science however. It does not mean that one needs to be able to directly repeat the event being studied. The repeatability has to apply to the tests being applied to X, not to X itself.

 

For example the red shift which leads us to the knowledge that the universe expanded from a singularity. We do not need to be able to repeat the singularity and its expansion to understand this. We are just required to be able to repeat the measurements and interpretations of the red shift.

 

However the issue with god is not "proof". "proof" is too lofty and I think we need to lower the bar. I never ask for proof of god. I ask for any evidence, argument, data or reasoning that lends the claim there is a god even a modicum of credibility.

 

Yet despite the low low bar and the wide wide net I am not getting any answers to that challenge. Much less from you.

[TaxAHCruel]

still science has no proof that God doesn't exist.

 

Your repetition of this canard just shows you are either entirely failing to understand things being said to you - or you are willfully ignoring what is being said in order to continue to play your record.

 

There is no onus or requirement for science to prove god does not exist. As long as the claim there is a god is specifically defined to be unfalsifiable then it simply does not enter into the purview of science.

 

If you enter into a conversation on american football and do not even know the rules or the shape of the ball you will just embarrass yourself. Similarly if you insist on rolling into the philosophical discussion on the existence of god and you wear your ignore about the concept of "Burden of proof" like a flag then you are just making yourself look ridiculous.

 

so based on which definition can anyone claim that there is no scientific proof of the existence of God... what if there is someone for whom God is the nature itself? Isn't there scientific proof of the existence of the nature???

 

If people want to redefine something we already have a word for as "god" then so be it. But it is functionally useless. I could just take the word "cake" and declare that "god" now means "Cake" and therefore "god" exists. In other words all you are talking here is people who are linguistically engaging in nonsense.

 

The "god" I am talking about is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. There is a complete - not slight but complete - lack of anything to even begin to suggest such an entity exists.

[TaxAHCruel]

Anyone who claims god doesn't exist is making a statement of faith. All that can be said is that there is no scientific evidence for a god. That statement requires no defense unless presented with potential evidence to the contrary.

 

And my statement is that there is no evidence, argument, data or reasoning on offer anywhere... much less on this thread... to suggest there is a god and the reasonable conclusion to reach based on the sum total of data available is to _functionally_ conclude there is no one and proceed on that conclusion.

[therhythm]

Your repetition of this canard just shows you are either entirely failing to understand things being said to you - or you are willfully ignoring what is being said in order to continue to play your record.

 

There is no onus or requirement for science to prove god does not exist. As long as the claim there is a god is specifically defined to be unfalsifiable then it simply does not enter into the purview of science.

 

If you enter into a conversation on american football and do not even know the rules or the shape of the ball you will just embarrass yourself. Similarly if you insist on rolling into the philosophical discussion on the existence of god and you wear your ignore about the concept of "Burden of proof" like a flag then you are just making yourself look ridiculous.

 

 

 

If people want to redefine something we already have a word for as "god" then so be it. But it is functionally useless. I could just take the word "cake" and declare that "god" now means "Cake" and therefore "god" exists. In other words all you are talking here is people who are linguistically engaging in nonsense.

 

The "god" I am talking about is a non-human intelligence responsible for the creation and/or subsequent maintenance of our universe. There is a complete - not slight but complete - lack of anything to even begin to suggest such an entity exists.

 

There is no scientific proof that Julius Caesar ever existed and conquered half of Europe for the Romans... I guess Julius Caesar never existed?

 

Then calling God to nature... I just took the idea from a scientific (Einstein) whom I have quoted before and I will quote again ...

 

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists" Albert Einstein

 

 

As I said many times and I will say it once more (hoping that for once you will stop personalizing the whole discussion on me or my intentions or stupidity and begin trying to read what I write) the only thing that saying that there is no scientific evidence that God exists proofs is that there is no scientific evidence that God exists... :rolleyes:

Edited June 24, 2013 by therhythm

[The Introvert]

If there was proof of a god, I'd be a believer,...

 

Come on buddy, why would you need a scientific proof for the God who does things which are not scientifically correct : God made the vegetation before He made the sun and in the book of Genesis it is said that there was light before the sun was made...

[TaxAHCruel]

I thought you were not replying to me again. Or did you only say that lie to get away with copping out of replying to my previous post?

 

Told you you would be back replying to me though didn't I? Amazing how often I am right about things.

 

There is no scientific proof that Julius Caesar ever existed and conquered half of Europe for the Romans... I guess Julius Caesar never existed?

 

There is a lot of evidence related to the existence of this person actually. You not knowing it does not make said evidence go away.

 

However even BEFORE you get to evidence you can run a "credibility check". What is being claimed here? That a person existed - was a leader - and led an army. All very credible. We know people exist. We know leaders exist. We know armies exist and are led by leaders.

 

God? Nope. Does not pass the credibility check. We have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest any such thing exists at all.

 

So even long before we get as far as discussing the evidence for Julius your analogy breaks down.

 

Then calling God to nature... I just took the idea from a scientific (Einstein)

 

I care not at all whether the idea came from you - Einstein - the burger flipper in your local McDonalds - or the guy with no legs selling pencils out of a cup on the corner of north and main. My reply to the idea itself remains the same.

 

Either way all they/you are doing would be relabeling something we already have a word for with another word. There is no more utility in redefining "nature" with the word "god" as there is from redefining "cake" with the word "god".

 

begin trying to read what I write

 

That is my suggestion for you because that is actually my point. You keep pointing out over and over that science has no evidence for the lack of existence of god. I am explaining to you a) why that is and b) why therefore pointing it out makes you look as if you do not understand the concept of burden of proof.

 

Also please quote where I said anything about your stupidity? This is not the first time you have put words in my mouth - though it COULD be the first time you actually quote me when asked to rather than running away like you did last time I called you on it.

[therhythm]

I thought you were not replying to me again. Or did you only say that lie to get away with copping out of replying to my previous post?

 

Yes... I just felt compelled to do that even when I didn't want to do it... Some things really need an answer... even when is not for you but for all the other people who may read the thread...

 

Told you you would be back replying to me though didn't I? Amazing how often I am right about things.

 

I didn't answer your previous posts but if you keep interfering and quoting me when I am quoting and answering other people this kind of things happen... I hope you don't feel like a great scientific because of that

 

 

 

There is a lot of evidence related to the existence of this person actually. You not knowing it does not make said evidence go away.

I am not going to question you and ask you for the related proofs of the scientific evidences of Julius Caesar because you probably will answer me that it is not related to the thread like you did before

There are enough evidences indeed but non of them are scientific which is my point

 

 

However even BEFORE you get to evidence you can run a "credibility check". What is being claimed here? That a person existed - was a leader - and led an army. All very credible. We know people exist. We know leaders exist. We know armies exist and are led by leaders.

 

God? Nope. Does not pass the credibility check. We have no arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to suggest any such thing exists at all.

 

So even long before we get as far as discussing the evidence for Julius your analogy breaks down.

 

Credibility check... that sounds very scientific!! I am sure it is not subjective at all...

 

 

I care not at all whether the idea came from you - Einstein - the burger flipper in your local McDonalds - or the guy with no legs selling pencils out of a cup on the corner of north and main. My reply to the idea itself remains the same.

 

Yes.. and mine too

 

Either way all they/you are doing would be relabeling something we already have a word for with another word. There is no more utility in redefining "nature" with the word "god" as there is from redefining "cake" with the word "god".

 

That is the kid of the question... the definition of God is personal, you are just disusing here your own definition for what I see..

 

 

That is my suggestion for you because that is actually my point. You keep pointing out over and over that science has no evidence for the lack of existence of god. I am explaining to you a) why that is and b) why therefore pointing it out makes you look as if you do not understand the concept of burden of proof.

I don't care about the concept of burden of proof... please READ MY POST... I agree that there is no scientific proof of God the but the ONLY thing that that is proving is that there is no scientific evidence that God exists... Nothing more and nothing less...

 

Also please quote where I said anything about your stupidity? This is not the first time you have put words in my mouth - though it COULD be the first time you actually quote me when asked to rather than running away like you did last time I called you on it.

 

You don't need to say something to imply it... right?

[TaxAHCruel]

Please try and get the QUOTE function right, it makes replies to you easier. If in doubt hit the PREVIEW button.

 

I just felt compelled to do that

 

Like I said in the post you skipped over and ran away from - the more often someone says they will not reply to you - the more likely it is they actually will. Perhaps one way to get people to take your posts seriously is if you can be honest with yourself first.

 

you probably will answer me that it is not related to the thread like you did before

 

That is a transparent and crass attempt to make it sound like I was dodging a question you asked. However the truth is I did no such thing. In fact I expressed my willingness to explore an _entirely off topic_ question from you in another thread. All you had to do was start another thread and I was willing to give my time - knowledge - and resources over to you to answer it.

 

But no YOU dodged that - ran away - and are now all too unsubtly trying to make the implication that it was ME dodging and running.

 

Do that if you like but do not be under the impression that it makes anyone but YOU look bad here.

 

Credibility check... that sounds very scientific!! I am sure it is not subjective at all...

 

No. It is not. If you are going to claim X exists and there are OTHER examples of X existing then that is much more credible than proposing Y exists when there is no other example of Y anywhere at all to draw on.

 

That of course does not mean Y does not exist - it is only a credibility check - and because of this your analogy breaks down before it even begins. The analogy between "god" existing "Julius Ceaser" existing simply adds nothing.

 

the definition of God is personal

 

Which is why I am happy to listen to THEIR definition for "god" before exploring whether their defined entity exists or not. If they say "God is cake therefore god exists" I will be happy to admit that THIS "god" exists but I will question the wisdom of of calling it "god" when we have a perfectly serviceable word already.

 

I don't care about the concept of burden of proof

 

Clearly not. And I have doubts you understand it either. The issue is that there is no onus on science to evidence the non-existence of god.

 

please READ MY POST

 

I do. Try taking your own advice given YOU not I are the one skipping over and running away from posts. I however read and reply to what you have written. You just dodge what I have.

 

You don't need to say something to imply it... right?

 

I said nor implied no such thing. You are just putting thing sin my mouth now because you find it easier to attack them rather than what I actually said. You either skip over and run from what I have said - or you change it into what I did not say in order to reply to that easier.

[therhythm]

The analogy between "god" existing "Julius Ceaser" existing simply adds nothing.

 

 

It adds that there is as much scientifically evidences that God existed as Julius Caesar existed...

 

You can do as much credibility checks as you want...

Many would say that a credibility check for the existence of God could be taken by the amount of people who believe he exists

[TaxAHCruel]

It adds that there is as much scientifically evidences that God existed as Julius Caesar existed...

 

Not so. I can scientifically evidence the existence of men. Therefore this is data about Julius Ceasar we have that we have not got about god. So you are simply wrong above.

 

However way to skip over and ignore even more of the majority of yet another post. You are making "cop out and run" into an art form.

 

Many would say that a credibility check for the existence of God could be taken by the amount of people who believe he exists

 

Many people would say it but that would not stop it being nonsense. "Argumentum ad populum" is on the list of fallacies for a reason. Though until you get as far as learning "Burden of Proof" and its implications I would not advise you get ahead of yourself and learn the fallacies.

[therhythm]

Not so. I can scientifically evidence the existence of men. Therefore this is data about Julius Ceasar we have that we have not got about god. So you are simply wrong above.

 

However way to skip over and ignore even more of the majority of yet another post. You are making "cop out and run" into an art form.

You say it yourself, there is scientifically proof that men exist but not that Julius Caesar existed... I thought you could understand the difference between those two concepts...

 

I am great at cop out and run... you are a master... look to your last answer (before the one I am quoting) the one answering my post where I quoted line by line your post...and you will see ho many things I said you didn't answer at all... I decided I could just do the same

 

Many people would say it but that would not stop it being nonsense. "Argumentum ad populum" is on the list of fallacies for a reason. Though until you get as far as learning "Burden of Proof" and its implications I would not advise you get ahead of yourself and learn the fallacies.

 

Yes... I guess you never imply my ignorance in your post either right?? Funny how people with lack of arguments are prompt to disqualify the person they have a disagreement with

 

It would be good for you to learn what a syllogism (philosophy and not science!) is... your credibility check fits very good in that category!

Edited June 24, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

You say it yourself, there is scientifically proof that men exist but not that Julius Caesar existed

 

That is what science is. A collection of data pointing towards a conclusion. The very existence of men therefore is one piece of supporting data towards the existence of any specific male. So claiming that science has literally _no_ evidence is simply patently false.

 

I can recommend a few books to you on understanding what the methodology of science actually is - because you seem intent on demonstrating to us that you really have not got the first clue.

 

I quoted line by line your post

 

You have skipped whole posts and left them unanswered. Lied that you would not be replying to me again so you could skip one for example - then having skipped it proceeded to reply to me anyway.

 

I reply to everything you say. I might not QUOTE everything you say but I do reply to it directly or indirectly. Do not mistake quoting text with replying to text. The two are not the same. As evidenced by your modus operandi of quoting one thing I say and then replying to something I never said instead.

 

I guess you never imply my ignorance in your post either right??

 

No - that I did do. You are patently and clearly ignorant of certain philosophical concepts. However you did not say ignorance. You said "stupidity". You just put words in my mouth and I am waiting patiently for you to quote where I said it or retract the lie.

 

Ignorance and stupidity are not the same thing. Not even close. Pretending they are the same to make it look like I said something I did not is a crass and transparent tactic by you.

[therhythm]

That is what science is. A collection of data pointing towards a conclusion. The very existence of men therefore is one piece of supporting data towards the existence of any specific male. So claiming that science has literally _no_ evidence is simply patently false.

 

This line is so funny and so pathetic... so the very existence of animals is supporting data towards the existence of any animal (hence unicorns and pink panthers??) :lmao:

 

Even more just taking your scientific assertion... Harry potter and Gandalf probably existed as well :lmao:

 

Really scientific :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Edited June 25, 2013 by therhythm

[TaxAHCruel]

Amazing how many posts a person not making any more posts is making.

 

This line is so funny and so pathetic... so the very existence of animals is supporting data towards the existence of any animal (hence unicorns and pink panthers??)

 

It is _one piece_ yes. But not enough to substantiate the claim alone. You need to do more work than that to substantiate the existence of unicorns. But just because one piece of data alone can not do it - that does not mean it is not relevant or applicable data.

 

All I am saying is that straight away - before even beginning - you already have _one piece_ of data substantiating the credibility of one claims - while thus far no one has even the first shred of an iota of argument, evidence, data or reasoning that substantiates the claim there is a god.

 

Which is why your poor analogy fails. And your ability to type the word "pathetic" does not resurrect it.