I can feel your anger

[Selliedjoup]

So if there is no better method than the scientific method, yet it never worked with anything like the 'supernatural' how could it assess the 'supernatural'.

It can't, it rules it out. If you add supernatural as an answer to the natural it's immediately ruled out because it cannot be tested.

Exactly, that you consider you can define natural based on the assumption what is observed is circular. That you can't observe it, does not make it supernatural, as if it exsits it would still ne natural, but just that you can't observe it. But wait science is the best method we have therefore is tells us what natural is.

Note you claim natural is what science can prove, and imply anything unprovable is 'supernatural' which has the connotation of not being credible.

No you dense twit, science works on the natural because IT'S FUCKING TESTABLE!!! Fuck me what's wrong with you?

I'm not sure if you're bright enough to understand the question as your reponse does not address what I've said at all. I realise science is testable and works on the natural, this is not in contention. I'm stating your belief is that science can prove what is natural, therefore anything science cannot prove becomes 'supernatural'. Why MUST science/mankind be able to prove/observe everything that is? On what grounds do you make this assumption? Please to refrain from saying because it's testable as this does not address YOUR assumption. Yes it's testable, how does it test that which it can't test? or can it only test that which it can tested, which rules out possibility of the untestable? Your assumption is flawed.

Looks like I'll have to sod off, that said I'll stay if you can prove that science can prove or disprove a god, otherwise you'll just have to stick with the belief tag.

Not believing in something doesn't make it a belief. That's that and it ain't gonna change.

It's only not changing in your mind. This doesn't change what it is. I've answered every question, you just repeat science is our best method and testable as it's relevant. So what?

I asked why must science be able to assess the existence of a god, and you responded with science being the best method.

Science is the best method we have to explain things. It's a tool that helps us to look into things and gain a measure of understanding. If god cannot be tested/verified in an way, then it must be ruled out.

Try to answer (or at least address) the question this time. Does the BEST explanation we have mean it MUST be able answer the question? Yes or no? Supply reasoning if you can.

What evidence are you looking for? fingerprints, dna?

I'm so done with you. The only thing you've convinced me of is that you're a complete troll. So I'm putting you on ignore.
I won't be responding to any more of your posts.

Like totally?

It's a genuine question. You state there's no proof. To state there's no proof I would hope that you have some idea of what proof you're looking for, or at least what constitutes proof.

So far you can't answer why science MUST be able to answer the question, or what proof you're looking. But yeah sure, you hold no beliefs whatsoever.

Please note the bolding and capitalisation is for emphasis.

---

I put him on ignore. He wants nothing to do with dialogue and everything to do with diatribe.

If you tried dialogue, (i.e presenting your position as a subjective one) then it's fairly simple.

Dialogue with a fundamentalist is impossible, they will commonly assert unjustified criticism. Good use of words beginning with "D" though.