Proof that God exists

[The Grand Nudger]

Who seeks to disprove their own theory?  What atheist here is critical of his own belief?  The idea that anyone would be critical of what they're advocating is silly and a flaw inherent to science.  (Now I have to find evidence to back that up LOL <-- confirmation bias)

Peer review exists.  /gibberish.

[Agnosty]

I wouldn't get too excited.  There's no reason to assume that agnosty knows what that word means...his track record with words is abysmal.  It's entirely likely that he's about to grace us with another lazy set of mindless assertions informed by his abject and willful ignorance of the subject matter.

I've yet to see evidence that you could produce a non-ad-hom objection.  Everything you say can be predictably boiled down to "you're wrong because you're stupid."  Cute, but logically meaningless.  Of course, I just did the same thing you did, but at least I don't do it exclusively lol.  Does mirroring have value?

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster.  Oops.  

[vulcanlogician]

Intrigued... but confused.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I posited that confirmation bias is the impetus for scientific inquiry.
Now that I have that belief in mind, I will try to find evidence to back it up.

I know what confirmation bias is.

You don't see the humor?

I missed the joke, but I think it's because I disagree w/ you that science is subject to confirmation bias.

Who seeks to disprove their own theory?  What atheist here is critical of his own belief?

Me and me. I like to have my beliefs challenged. In fact, I love it. You like Nietzsche. One of the reasons he is so exhilarating to read is because he challenges one's prejudices. I am currently reading Varieties of Religious Experience by William James to challenge my own atheistic notions. So there.

The idea that anyone would be critical of what they're advocating is silly and a flaw inherent to science.  (Now I have to find evidence to back that up LOL <-- confirmation bias)

You lost me... please explain this last part.

[Agnosty]

Who seeks to disprove their own theory?  What atheist here is critical of his own belief?  The idea that anyone would be critical of what they're advocating is silly and a flaw inherent to science.  (Now I have to find evidence to back that up LOL <-- confirmation bias)

Peer review exists.  /gibberish.

So my biased peer just reviewed and dismissed my argument.  My case is made.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Agnosty]

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I posited that confirmation bias is the impetus for scientific inquiry.
Now that I have that belief in mind, I will try to find evidence to back it up.

I know what confirmation bias is.

You don't see the humor?

I missed the joke, but I think it's because I disagree w/ you that science is subject to confirmation bias.

Who seeks to disprove their own theory?  What atheist here is critical of his own belief?

Me and me. I like to have my beliefs challenged. In fact, I love it. You like Nietzsche. One of the reasons he is so exhilarating to read is because he challenges one's prejudices. I am currently reading Varieties of Religious Experience by William James to challenge my own atheistic notions. So there.

The idea that anyone would be critical of what they're advocating is silly and a flaw inherent to science.  (Now I have to find evidence to back that up LOL <-- confirmation bias)

You lost me... please explain this last part.

I don't know how to make it more clear.  Ok, I posit x.  Now I will seek evidence that confirms x is true.  The funny part is x = all scientific inquiry begins with confirmation bias.

The seeking of evidence to support the idea that all seeking of evidence is to support an idea.. that is, itself, confirmation bias.

Are you an atheist?  If yes, then are you advocating atheism?  If yes, then are you seeking evidence to disprove atheism?  If yes, then you are my new best friend because you are the one person on earth who is really objective.  But if you're objective, then why are you advocating anything?  If you're objective, then why aren't you agnostic?  The instant you think you know something, you can no longer be objective.  If you were objective, then you'd not be able to know.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've yet to see evidence that you could produce a non-ad-hom objection.  Everything you say can be predictably boiled down to "you're wrong because you're stupid."

I'm entertaining precisely that as the origin of your ignorance.  The other option is that they're concurrent but unrelated phenomena.  You just happen to be stupid -and- wrong at the same time.  I find that hard to believe, after reading your posts.  Particularly since explaining to you precisely -why- you are wrong is completely ineffective.

Now, I see above, that you think that objectivity is somehow synonymous with agnosticism and even ignorance, lol. Go buy a dictionary. You're bad at words.

[Agnosty]

Don't be so critical of yourself.  Hey, at least Tesla would have adored you  

---

I've yet to see evidence that you could produce a non-ad-hom objection.  Everything you say can be predictably boiled down to "you're wrong because you're stupid."

And so we get another ad hom, to wit:

I'm entertaining precisely that as the origin of your ignorance.  The other option is that they're concurrent but unrelated phenomena.  You just happen to be stupid -and- wrong at the same time.  I find that hard to believe, after reading your posts.  Particularly since explaining to you precisely -why- you are wrong is completely ineffective.

As I said before, I wouldn't be so proud of a deficiency.  All you've said is you're not able to understand what I've said, and because you have the deficiency in perception, you then call me stupid.  That's dunning-kruger precisely.  It's a shame that there is no way for you to see that... even though you should worry that others can.  The ego is holding you back.

[The Grand Nudger]

"I'm not wrong you just don't understand!"  

This is something that people mutter with regularity when they're found to be talking out of their ass. If you think you've made some cogent comment regarding biology or science in general..stop wasting your time with us. Go collect your nobel.

Display courage in your convictions and set all that bad science right.

[Agnosty]

"I'm not wrong you just don't understand!"  

I didn't say I am not wrong. All I did is paraphrase your admission that you do not understand what I said and then offer friendly advice that you should not be so proud of such admission. Innocent, really.