Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

All statements must be supported with empirical evidence; except this one

I'm more of a rationalist than you might think. Which one of my above statements are you mocking? The one about epistemological constraints, certain knowledge, or both? You don't need empirical facts to show that empiricism is useful.

It was just a joke

You are critiquing science as it is practiced. Sure, there are problems with how science is conducted (like publication bias among other things). But I was speaking of science more abstractly. Would you say that science practiced perfectly, that is, without hindrance from socio-political pressures of any kind, would be a worthy vessel for empirical knowledge? If so, then we agree.

Yes, we agree, but the abstraction of science cannot be practiced in the real world just like the device which provides the objection to Nietzsche's "eternal return" argument could never be constructed.

Confirmation bias is the impetus for scientific inquiry.  Hang on, let me go find evidence to back that statement  So, as soon as we begin, we're off on the wrong foot.  But we muddle along.

Why does physics have to be so hard?   It doesn't.  It's actually straightforward outside of the ambiguity of terms and subjectiveness of definitions.  I think I've used "gamma rays" here before... where the definition depends on who is asked.  How can something that is subjective and ambiguous be considered a science instead of an art?  Google "heat and work" and you'll find 50 pages on quora struggling to define them properly.  Wtf!  Heat, energy, internal energy, thermal energy, radiance, kinetic energy, thermal radiation... it's a giant cluster-flux of terms that overlap or have variable definitions, yet is called science.  Someone should clean up that mess for the good of humanity.