Science can prove a god must exist

[Zaki Aminu]

Arguing almost entirely from philosophy is a bad idea... It just raises more and more questions that don't need brought up, without answering anything.

And your immature condescension is not wanted or needed here.

Er, no. You can't do science without a philosophy of science. There has to be a logically justifiable objective methodology in place - otherwise all one has is something more akin to politics; where you gather people who agree with you and together you form a pressure group to fight for your parochial interests. That might be a good way to assert your will in society - but it's hardly appropriate for studying the cosmos, is it?

I'm sorry if I'm making you uncomfortable. Are you wanting me to leave the forum? I won't stay where I'm not wanted.

---

To be clear Zaki, many of us will have a discussion regarding philosophy, specifically apologetic arguments with you. Most of us won't be convinced by these arguments, and instead prefer evidence. However, if you wish to have some sort of discussion relying solely on philosophic arguments for the existence of god, you will have to provide a valid, sound argument for said concept. You have not. You have been shown why this is the case, repeatedly. You continue to use the same "argument". This is why you are being ridiculed.

(if you would like links to each and every time someone has taken the time to post showing you the fallacious reasoning involved in your arguments, in case you missed them, you need only ask)

How do you determine what is "evidence" and what is just an assertion without logic though? There is no way to do that, is there?