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.

[The Grand Nudger]

If not random, then it's teleological.  Can't have it both ways.

..........................?

If you don't have faith in it, why use it?

Because it works as advertised.  Same reason I don't use religion.

What I see is a thread where people are routinely butchering the things they're attempting to criticize, and the basic meanings of the words they don't understand, but try to employ to do it.

[Amarok]

If not random, then it's teleological.  Can't have it both ways.

..........................?  

If you don't have faith in it, why use it?

Because it works as advertised.  Same reason I don't use religion.

What I see is a thread where people are routinely butchering the things they're attempting to criticize, and the basic meanings of the words they don't understand, but try to employ to do it.

Here here . Like comparing science to faith .Or saying something can't be non random if not a thing intended .

[Agnosty]

If not random, then it's teleological.  Can't have it both ways.

..........................?  

Either genetic mutations are random or they're mutating along a determined path (ie plan).

Either it is random or it is not.

If you don't have faith in it, why use it?

Because it works as advertised.  Same reason I don't use religion.

ie faith, as I said.

What I see is a thread where people are routinely butchering the things they're attempting to criticize, and the basic meanings of the words they don't understand, but try to employ to do it.

I wouldn't proudly admit my shortcomings regarding perception so eagerly, but you're welcome to 

[The Grand Nudger]

Either genetic mutations are random or they're mutating along a determined path (ie plan).

Either it is random or it is not.

Mutation is constrained on a great many sides, but is still meaningfully random within those boundaries, none of which have to do with any "plan". There is no mutation by which a dog becomes a cat, nevertheless there are many possible mutations that can be expressed in canine dna. Even if there were a "plan" to mutate a dog into a cat it would fail, because that's not how biology works. So much for teleology. Powerless in the face of dogs fucking- and you can ask any breeder, who actually does have a plan, just how annoying biology can be.

ie faith, as I said.

You say alot of things.  Most of them gibberish, like the above.  Give me a hollar when the devil shows up at the end of the ritual.  When we go out looking for evidence that evolution works as we say it does...we find it. When we go out searching for ghosts, we find nothing. So tell me more about which of the two requires faith.

I wouldn't proudly admit my shortcomings regarding perception so eagerly, but you're welcome to 

You wouldn't admit your shortcomings for any reason or in any way...proudly, eagerly, or otherwise.  You're committed to being a know-nothing because learning something endangers your gibberish assertions..and they clearly mean more to you than knowledge.

[vulcanlogician]

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.

Intrigued... but confused.

[The Grand Nudger]

I wouldn't get too excited.  There's no reason to assume that agnosty knows what that word means...his track record with words is abysmal.  It's entirely likely that he's about to grace us with another lazy set of mindless assertions informed by his abject and willful ignorance of the subject matter.

[vulcanlogician]

There's something to be said for imaginative thinking though.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not when that "imaginative thinking" cannot be accurately communicated. That's the trouble with having a problem with words. It renders a persons "imaginative" deepity to gibberish.

[Agnosty]

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.

Intrigued... but confused.

Confirmation bias is the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

I posited that confirmation bias is the impetus for scientific inquiry.
Now that I have that belief in mind, I will try to find evidence to back it up.

You don't see the humor?

That's really how science works.

A series of psychological experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased toward confirming their existing beliefs. Later work re-interpreted these results as a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. In certain situations, this tendency can bias people's conclusions.

Who seeks to disprove their own theory?  What atheist here is critical of his own belief?  The idea that anyone would be critical of what they're advocating is silly and a flaw inherent to science.  (Now I have to find evidence to back that up LOL <-- confirmation bias)