Probality of God

[Tito L. Oracion]

and what method(s) did you use to falsify ALL the other gawds?
and what method(s) did you use to validate this 'gawd of abraham'?



take heed of the words from your very own holey babble...

james 1:26
those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.

You don't really get it do you?


The One true God is the one that will falsify other false god cause they cannot endure time.


They are automatically be falsified when its time for them to be punish by the one true God!


You know what just use a little common sense, even you can solve some simple question like this.
 

[WilbyInebriated]

You don't really get it do you?


The One true God is the one that will falsify other false god cause they cannot endure time.


They are automatically be falsified when its time for them to be punish by the one true God!


You know what just use a little common sense, even you can solve some simple question like this.

chetito... it's ok to admit you don't have any idea what 'falsify' and 'validate' means in the scientific vernacular... 

[infringer]

I see so many people wanting evidence for proof of God and so forth yet I have seen nothing concrete that disproves the existence of God either so it is a double edged sword for me.
Is there any scientific or mathematical data (Anything concrete) that you could use to disprove the exsistence of God?

[hoptoad]

I see so many people wanting evidence for proof of God and so forth yet I have seen nothing concrete that disproves the existence of God either so it is a double edged sword for me.
Is there any scientific or mathematical data (Anything concrete) that you could use to disprove the exsistence of God?

The trouble is, proving a double negative is even harder than proving a negative. Where there is no (accepted) empirical proof that something exists, there is also no (accepted) empirical proof to say it doesn't.

Personally I like to imagine there was once an eternal unchanging god who became very, very bored with its endless eternal unchanging self. So it became the always changing, never boring, eternally evolving universe. (Answers the needs of those who require a creator, and still fulfills the notion of conservation of energy for those who need a balanced energy ledger.)

But that's only what I like to think (dream). I have zero proof to offer, so I think it, imagine it, but I do not "Believe" it, even though it's an elegant explanation that addresses one main concern of both those who are either for or against a god driven universe!

The question of the existence of God will probably always be a question of faith, I imagine, but science does not preclude faith and faith does not preclude science. They are two different things, but they are both a product of the mind and are imbued into the human condition. Even Wilby, ultimately must acknowledge that logic, being a product of the human mind, is only one of our many (imperfect) tools of understanding.

Many of the foremost scientists of the modern era, are or were, devoutly religious, but also many are not.

Personally I don't "believe"..... que sera ...

Cheers

[WilbyInebriated]

I see so many people wanting evidence for proof of God and so forth yet I have seen nothing concrete that disproves the existence of God either so it is a double edged sword for me.
Is there any scientific or mathematical data (Anything concrete) that you could use to disprove the exsistence of God?