Good to see god shines through me with that creative process, far better than the shit you come out with..

You state:     
Science can never possibly show God exists (nor that He doesn't) because it only deals with physical evidence, and there can never be physical evidence for God due to the problem of induction, which I will link for the bazillionth time in hopes you might actually read it sometime:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_induction

I'm trying to help you out.  You love attacking Science, and I'm sure you would agree the best way to attack Science is to show how it is limited.  The problem of induction is an absolute limit of scientific reasoning.  Reading about and understanding the limits of inductive reasoning will actually give you a rational basis for your claims against science, and you won't sound like a complete moron anymore.

It's your choice: Either concede the superior argument to me in exchange for the best weapon you can add to your arsenal, or you can maintain pride in your ignorance and be left unarmed.

You state: 
Faith by definition is a belief in something in the total and absolute lack of evidence.

Science by definition is totally and absolutely concerned with evidence.

Lol says the person who invents definitions to pre-existing words at will and has not provided a single direct response to any question posed to him in over 204 pages of material, to the person who responds directly to virtually point you make, citing references and providing deep, thoughtful responses to all of them.

You're totally right.  There isn't anyone else on Earth other than myself that thinks a dictionary is valid source for defining words of the English vocabulary.

I'll just take our approach and say that everything in the dictionary means the exact opposite.


If you think science is about faith and faith is about evidence, then by logical extension I also assume that you think "bad" means "good,"  "I" means "you," and "God" means "Satan."

Edit:  Oh wait!  I had an epiphany!  The dictionary is obviously a political deception of scientists!   

Allow me:

A good 80% of people who go to church are masons. Masons deny the existance of jesus (CHRIST, No, god is not the christos), and in fact have replaced him with Hiram Abiff. They have a coin in their pocket, a representative of the cross, which has letters all around it. Hiram The Widows Son Sent to King Solomon. Solomon is also an author of the bible. I learnt this in jail when 18 years old. I was also told WHY they deny jesus (NOT TRUE), but if I post that, I wont get any more confirmations of my 'thought's', in particular, those I figure out are true.

These people KNOW what I am trying to show, but BADecker deny's.

How does one feel to know that if 80% of church go'ers deny jesus???

And you think we'll be saved?

Hahaha

So, I assume then you have clicked the link I provided, read and learned about the 'problem of induction,' and then concluded it was wrong so as to continue on with your point of view.

Here's another chance for you point out my fallacy:  Can you tell me what the 'problem of induction' and explain why it isn't applicable to you?

You mean in an electrical transformer, right? It's resistance. That's why they have superconductors.

You believe that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a woman made from a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree.

And you don't understand why I have doubts?

--Mike Rivero

Everyone has doubts, even the best of believers. The idea is to gain some faith and do away with the doubts. Start here https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/737322.msg10718395#msg10718395.

Have another pearl on me from Mike.

If one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their presence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, it would be expected that all humans, or at least the priests who claim communications with the god(s), would have a unanimity of opinion as to how many gods there are.

Likewise, if one posits the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to human minds, then as an inevitable result of the existence of that god or gods, able to communicate to human minds, all theologies would be in accord, and there would be no need for missionaries, let alone inquisitions and holy crusades. The religion of Abraham would have stayed unified, rather than split up into Christianity, Judaism, Sunni, and Shi'ite over what amounts to a bunch of soap opera arguments.

But there is a diversity of opinions as to how many gods there are. And there are missionaries, crusades, the inquisition, and the burning of a million heretics.

The world is not as it would be if there was a god or gods which could communicate their existence to the minds of humankind. None of the conditions which must inevitably follow the existence of a god or gods able to communicate their existence to the minds of humankind can be found anywhere on Earth.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum, no such gods exist.



Read more: whatreallyhappened.com http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/ATHEISM/inquisition.php#ixzz3UCkn2sq1