Proof that God exists

[Agnosty]

You have trouble with logic, Agnosty. 

All of us do, really. Our brains are programmed with type 1 thinking, and we have to LEARN logic. I still commit fallacies. Even G.E. Moore, a famous philosopher has been accused of fallacious reasoning. 

If someone is suffering from fallacious logic, one doesn't appeal to the mob in calumny peppered with "post bong hit" jabs unless one is himself suffering from lapses in logic (or is the catholic church) or else why the need to rally the mob?  All you'd need to do is kindly pinpoint my error and we'd be good.  Ah... but therein lies the problem.  You can't win on a fair field, but losing is also not an option, so every man to their pitchforks!

When you said holding the position "2+2=4" was not "objective" because one is not open to other possibilities, I knew that you both misunderstood logic and had an eccentric definition for the word "objective." 

And when I knew you couldn't see it, I knew conversing is hopeless.  You're accusing me of your deficiency.

The good news is, it's fixable. If you manage to stick around, I will personally do my best to show you where your logic fails--not to be a dick... to help you.

I never intended to stick around since social evolution dictated this course of events in such minutely predictable fashion and to have suspected it would have unfolded differently would have been a REAL lapse in logic.  What I set out to accomplish, has been accomplished and I received no valid objection to my hypothesis.  The mudslinging was anticipated because when folks are out of ammo, they resort to chucking whatever is handy.

You accused science of confirmation bias because "it uses empiricism to prove empiricism."

That demonstrates your inability to comprehend the problem.  Using observation to prove observation is not the same as seeking to prove what you suspect.  Observe the definition of confirmation bias again.

And, oh yeah, "thanks for playing"     <--- see what contemptible obnoxiousness such plebeian vernacular indicates?

I told you that was false: one uses logic to arrive at empiricism. I even recommended Locke's "Essay Concerning Human Understanding" which explains the process from the ground up, and you were like "I read Locke once; he didn't impress me much." Or something like that. Well, obviously that's your loss.

Not my loss.  Locke wasn't that elucidating.  However, I'm beginning to see how you think he's a grand poobah.  You may try doing some pioneering of your own ground rather than riding on the backs of others, but don't take my advice since I've a lapse in logic and aren't chained to Locke.

These aren't insults.

They were intended to be, regardless whether they actually are or not.

These are not conjecture.

It's unfortunate is that you honestly believe that.

You need to work on logic. You need to read up on the foundations of empiricism.

I'm sure I need to do a lot of things.

I was really exited to see that you were posting stuff arguing for a sort of "true agnosticism" rather than "atheist leaning" because it's an interesting position. If you learned some basic logic like burden of proof among other things, you could really add to the discussions.

Now that's gold!  If I learned some stuff, then I could teach some stuff LOL  I'm in a bewilderment how you're able to type with all the back-patting you're doing.

And stop taking things so personally.

Then stop making them personal.  Focus on the topic instead of making ME the topic (ie ad hom).

The theists have nothing to fear so long as the atheist stay exactly as they are.

---

I'm all for continuing to treat you like a dick.

That means you're going to put me in your mouth? Well, pull your foot out before you do.