Burden of Proof

[Mark 13:13]

Well I suppose when we do it its called moving the goal posts but in science its called refining theories or even changing theories that were never wrong but just based on insufficient information, and of course if a theory has any issues unresolved in it not to worry we know for sure that someone will come along soon with the missing bit were missing and it will all be sorted. So mr scientist who will admit you don't know everything and have never been wrong just not quite correct why should I just accept what you say when you tell me I'm wrong about the existance of the GOD I believe in. Have you been outside the universe to collect any data to justify your conclusions........

And here, all you've shown is that you also don't understand what "moving the goalposts" means. So let me explain it to you, using your own example:

Say, for a moment, that we have a machine that can test for god. Finally, we have a method to know, or to find proof of his existence; the churches of the world line up behind the damn machine, convinced that what they'll get is proof of their god. Except the machine returns a negative, a hundred times or more. Now, instead of taking that as proof and leaving, religious organizations use your reasoning: "the reason the machine didn't find god was because god didn't want to be found by the machine!"

That is moving the goalposts: When there was a possibility of being proven right, those churches were all about scientific proof. Once proven wrong, they move the criteria, and now science is powerless before god. It's an argument of convenience, not intellectual honesty.

But let's go further: say a hundred years from that point, a new, more accurate machine is invented, and it returns only positive results, over and over. If the scientific community knows and reviews the machine to be accurate, they don't then refuse to accept the results because "the machine wanted to find god!" They freaking admit that their previous assumptions were wrong and work based on the new evidence.

Can you not see the difference? I hope that you were simply misinformed, but the fact that you went on to demand I prove a negative, when you can't even prove your own claim, and refuse to in fact, I highly doubt it. I thought you didn't care about proof, though? Or is it just proof that disagrees with you that's inconsequential?

seems like a more scientific way to move the goal posts so its ok.

---

A niggle can be a powerful thing.

Depends on how credulous one is.

You seem to be very credulous.

Or very lucky.