Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

I can, however, give you an example of something I don;t understand, but it would be more a convo between vulcan and I than you and I.  I don't understand the value of "challenging my positions" re atheism.  This can only mean one thing - legitimately considering fairies. 

That demonstrates a narrow thinking.  How do you know challenging atheism results in the consideration of fairies?  Are there not other concepts of god that you have not considered?  How can you be so sure?  How can you be sure about what you have never considered?  How can you be sure you've considered all possibilities?

Knowledge explicitly demands objectivity.  If you know it, you can show it.  If you can't show it, it's not objective..and therefore is not knowledge.  More properly, it is a belief.

Can you show atheism is true?  

"If you can't show it, it's not objective"  So then, if I can't show something is true, then I can't be objective?   Only when I know for sure, then I can be objective?  Seems opposite to me.

Fun with words:  The objective is to determine the existence of bigfoot.  To that end we have deployed objective investigators, in order to objectively determine whether or not this creature exists.  Three uses of the term, three distinct connotations in context.  All well and good.  If, however, we drift back and forth between these connotations in drawing inferences between them our conclusion will be fundamentally uninformative due to textbook equivocation.  Or, in other words...being bad at words.

That would be a failure on the part of the reader to properly ascertain what the author was trying to convey.  You cannot project your connotations onto an author and claim you're properly interpreting what is said.

---

So you have misunderstood the scientific principle which is the opposite of that. You see in science you have a thing called "falsifiability" So you come up with things that would disprove your theory and look for those.



"One of the tenets behind the scientific method is that any and resultant experimental design must be inherently falsifiable. Although falsifiability is not universally accepted, it is still the foundation of the majority of scientific experiments. Most scientists accept and work with this tenet, but it has its roots in philosophy and the deeper questions of truth and our access to it."

That would be ideal, yes.  Realistic?  No.

---

See???  More ad homs.  Can't you post even one time without redirection of attention onto how stupid I am?  Don't you see how that removes credibility from your position?

Not really..but that actually -would- be an ad hom.  Imagining that "my position"..which, for reference..has been that natural and artifical selection exists.....as one example of things you take issue with..... loses credibility because I'm a huge meanie.

It has nothing to do with your being mean, but that you have nothing left but to insult.  Doesn't bother me if you call me names, but it should bother YOU because it means you've run the gambit of your intellect and have resorted to calling names.

Me calling you an idiot is just an insult, not an ad hom. 

 
Wrong.  Redirection from the argument to the person is the definition of ad hom.  It has nothing to do with insults.  You could compliment me and it would still be an ad hom.

You've confused me for a missionary.  I'm correcting you, not trying to win you over.

 
Then you're wasting your time correcting someone.  Anytime you commit an ad hom, you're wasting your time regardless of your goal.

Peer review is a much more viscious process than what you've been subjected to here.  If you tried this shit in peer review your ignorance would be briefly savaged and then you would be ignored as a crank and non-entity.  I honestly doubt that anyone would publish so much as a smidgeon of your opinions on biology or science.

More ad homs.

You're hopeless.