God and the dilemma with unfalsifiability

[I_am_not_mafia]

And it's only non-scientists that think that you make lots of money as a scientist.

I know scientist that make 6 figures and he is a Christian.

How. What does he do?

Evolutionary science has no use because it's not true, there are no proofs at all, none.

Nor is there any proof for creationism so we can disregard that point. It's only theists who ask for proofs because they suffer from religious binary thinking.

Instead we need to look at the available evidence to determine which is true. The theory of evolution arose to explain the evidence. Any evidence for creationism was cherry picked to back up an existing religious belief while ignoring simper alternative explanations.

As I said, I use the evolutionary process all the time. Many scientists do. Mankind has deliberately bred animals throughout history. This is evolutionary theory in practice. There are medicines that work effectively which were created based on evolutionary theory. Just saying that evolutionary science has no use does not make it so. What you are doing is effectively sticking your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-la. If you're happy with yourself for doing that then fine, whatever floats your boat, but don't expect the rest of us to listen to you.

I know what peer review is and I know what dishonest peer review is. Creation scientists have given much evidence for the way they see things, it goes against what the so called reviewers believe so it's rejected.

I very much doubt that you can tell the difference between peer review and dishonest peer review in the same way that you do not understand what critical thinking skills are.

The evidence does not support your contention. There are many papers that go against what reviewers believe that get accepted because they meet an acceptable standard.  Just providing evidence is not enough if the paper does not meet an acceptable standard. And by that I mean if the conclusions are not supported by the evidence presented, if the authors have not performed a literature review and acknowledged alternative explanations and why they don't apply, if the work is not falsifiable or reproducible etc. Standards are generally very high for peer review and many papers from genuine scientists get rejected because they do not meet the minimum standards. Genuine scientists understand this. Creationists cry persecution.

Since you do not believe in God I expect such a statement from you, being so you are not qualified to make such a statement and represent it as truth, it's nothing but an opinion you give to please the other atheist.

I do not need to be a Muslim to know that Allah nor any other god is false. God said there are no other gods but Me. Since God is omniscient we have no reason to question what He says.

 

You are a hypocrite.

A hypocrite how so, what I said is true.

Using your standards then I do not need to believe in your god to know that he does not exist, in the same way that you claim that you do not need to be a Muslim to know that Allah or any other god is also false.

Your argument relies on special pleading.