It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
When you say proof, you mean scientific proof,
so saying that I don't require proof is misleading.
Who's to say anyone who claims to be God hasn't already proven themselves to me?
They just may not have done it in a scientifically accepted way?
Isn't that what this current conversation is all about?
God is a theory as I already explained to you 5 weeks ago. Didn't I demonstrate how I tested this theory of God? It passed didn't it? It was predicted and fulfilled, wasn't it? I agree, assumptions were used in determining the validity of these tests. In fact this is the point of the whole thread. The religion of science makes these assumptions all the time.
Science is based on faith too. I've already explained this ad nauseam.
You are the one putting words into my mouth. You claim that by my logic I would require no proof in believing someone was God if they said so. I was clarifying the innaccuracy of your assumption here. The proof wouldn't be limited to the examples you provide either, "God".
I have no idea what your point is in regards to lack of faith in your divinity, despite your efforts to clarify. Sounds like you've taken another tangent down your favourite path dictated by your "more than one religion agenda" you continually raise without provocation.
No need to point out the concept of scientific proof to me, I already know it's obvious that you meant "proof" in this fashion. I'm educating you in your incorrect use of the word. I see you're learning.
Again, not sure which topics you thing the conversation is jumping between, I thought scientif proof is a pretty constant theme. Perhaps you find it easier and are trying to change the topic because you make such a poor attempt to disprove the original one?
What has my proof of God example got to do with proving assumptions are taken as fact by scientists? I made an assumption as science does, and came to a conclusion based on this assumption as science does. Pretty simple analogy. How is that website coming along by the way? It still doesn't seem to be working?
Actually rather than explaining how science is based on faith, I believe you couldn't explain it, got annoyed and promised to leave the conversation, twice! Why are you still here then? I just cannot believe anything you say.
The levitating example I used makes no mention of proof, it alludes to making assumptions that invalid tests can provide conclusive answers.
I agree, there is no hope that YOU will be able to explain your point further, as you don't possess strong explanatory skills. That is your failing, not mine. Yes, science not being a religion is a non-issue because it is quite aparrent that it is. Case closed.
My desires have nothing to do with you failing to acknowledge that your idea of proof only encompasses scientific proof. Hence the need to educate you.
I think you need to replace the word desperate with accurate. My God an analogy was an accurate attempt to prove that science IS a religion. Rather than opposing this example baselessly, how about proving that it doesn't satisfy the requirement of passing the test and fulfilling the prediction?
OK you stated, so you were lying. What else are you ling about? Same issue still exists.