★★ [4.3 SECOND conversion] ★★: CONVERT religious to atheist, in roughly 4.3 seconds.

[ProgrammingGodJordan]

@Aristocatt

Non omniscience = probabilistic expression, as far as science goes.

In other words, there doesn't appear to be any scope, beyond omniscience, or probabilistic expression, so if you aren't omniscient, you do things probabilistically...

The first statement just isn't true.
Science has nothing to say about omniscience or the lack thereof.  Omniscience isn't a scientific idea, or an observable phenomena.
Science does have something to say about observations.

Nothing about your second sentence makes any sense.  It's neither a proof nor an appeal to evidence of any kind.  

I'm still stuck though.  Did you wrap up your first philosophy 101 class last semester, or are you just trolling?

Simply, see the uncertainty principle, which expresses that we don't have omniscience of any event; ie we measure things probabilistically.

---

@Alasdair Ham

I had not been aware of 'agnostic theism'.
It appears I have erred, in the expression of the original post.

Do you live in bullet time?

See the subsequent post of mine:

At most you've shown them to be agnostic theists. Try harder next time

I had not been aware of 'agnostic theism'.
It appears I have erred, in the expression of the original post.

Probable Erratum:

Perhaps I had not erred, despite my prior ignorance of 'agnostic atheism'.
It appears that the degree of belief (amid agnostic theism) falls in the 'absolute' domain.

As this appears to negate (1), are such beings but atheistic? @Aoi Magi