budaatum:


That does not mean science is all fraud, Nothing. Its like say an article were titled fraud in church or religion. You would not be here claiming church or religion is fraud, I hope.

Stop the strawmanning here pls.

The article is clear on TOP 10 FRAUDS in science.

I see you like Bible quotes. Isaiah said something about people who see something and called it something else.

Top 10 frauds in science isn’t same as ALL SCIENCE IS FRAUD.

budaatum:


And yet, scientist keep discovering new things that build and sometimes supersede what they previously did know.

Perhaps go read about Aelius Galenus. A lot of what he thought to be true has since been superseded and proven to be wrong, but his contributions to medicine are still recognised though not believed.

You have the full text of that article.
You could read further.

Scientists have bitterly argued about which methods are the best, and, as we all know, bitter arguments rarely get resolved.
In my view, the biggest mistake scientists make is to claim that this is all somehow simple and therefore to imply that anyone who doesn't get it is a dunce. Science is not simple, and neither is the natural world; therein lies the challenge of science communication. What we do is both hard and, often, hard to explain. Our efforts to understand and characterize the natural world are just that: efforts. Because we're human, we often fall flat. The good news is that when that happens, we pick ourselves up, brush ourselves off, and get back to work. That's no different from professional skiers who wipe out in major races or inventors whose early aspirations go bust. Understanding the beautiful, complex world we live in, and using that knowledge to do useful things, is both its own reward and why taxpayers should be happy to fund research.
Scientific theories are not perfect replicas of reality, but we have good reason to believe that they capture significant elements of it. And experience reminds us that when we ignore reality, it sooner or later comes back to bite us.

budaatum:


I think you are the one who hears this because you are incapable of separating your subjective hearing from that which is objective. Its common with religious people to think scientist use words like religious folks do. They don't realise that their religious subjective lens blinds them to scientific objectivity.

Personally, even reading the Bible should be done objectively. It is what Christ meant where he is written to have said, "unless you become as a child". Basically, if you do not abandon your subjective beliefs you can't understand that which is of God's Kingdom, and would end up a mere believer instead of one who understands the God book they read.

You'd see me refering to ignorant Adam who believed he would surely die on the day he ate of the fruit he was forbidden to eat. And despite the fact that he lived an extra 800 or so years after eating it, many still believe he did surely die on the day that he ate it.

I personally can not help be amused that so many refuse to accept what they can clearly see and read for themselves. Unfortunately, such ignorance is precisely why the average life expectancy in nations full of such people is much shorter than in countries full of people who use their own senses to ask and knock and seek.

You are contradicting yourself.
You mentioned in one of your responses that the beauty of science was the falsability component that allows ideas and theories change over time with better and superior outcomes. How objective and empirical are the objectivity of scientific methods if they change every now and then?

Do you deny human scientists speak for science or you think it is religious people who speak for science?

Do you deny biases that come with funding in sciences? Do you deny biases that come with worldviews? Do you deny biases that come from even peer reviews?

I have not condemned the scientific approaches and the great work science had done. I have simply pointed out that the human elements in science sometimes are not objectively objective and empirical. Biases and arbitrariness come in. And these are shared with the public but could be discovered after a few years or even many years and then falsified. Punishments are meted by ethical committes and the process goes on again.

Just like you pointed out in Adam not getting the implications of the spiritual death God talked about and the ultimate death at the end of the day, scientists notice blunders, falsify them and forge ahead after learning a lesson or two.


“Yet death held sway from Adam to Moses [the Lawgiver], even over those who did not themselves transgress [a positive command] as Adam did. Adam was a type (prefigure) of the One Who was to come [in reverse, the former destructive, the Latter saving]. [Gen. 5:5; 7:22; Deut. 34:5.] For if because of one man's trespass (lapse, offense) death reigned through that one, much more surely will those who receive [God's] overflowing grace (unmerited favor) and the free gift of righteousness [putting them into right standing with Himself] reign as kings in life through the one Man Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One). Well then, as one man's trespass [one man's false step and falling away led] to condemnation for all men, so one Man's act of righteousness [leads] to acquittal and right standing with God and life for all men. For just as by one man's disobedience (failing to hear, heedlessness, and carelessness) the many were constituted sinners, so by one Man's obedience the many will be constituted righteous (made acceptable to God, brought into right standing with Him). But then Law came in, [only] to expand and increase the trespass [making it more apparent and exciting opposition]. But where sin increased and abounded, grace (God's unmerited favor) has surpassed it and increased the more and superabounded, So that, [just] as sin has reigned in death, [so] grace (His unearned and undeserved favor) might reign also through righteousness (right standing with God) which issues in eternal life through Jesus Christ (the Messiah, the Anointed One) our Lord.”
‭‭Romans‬ ‭5:14, 17-21‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/rom.5.14,17-21.ampc

Nothingserious:
You are contradicting yourself.
You mentioned in one of your responses that the beauty of science was the falsability component that allows ideas and theories change over time with better and superior outcomes. How objective and empirical are the objectivity of scientific methods if they change every now and then?

No sir, I have not contradicted myself at all. It is you who mixes the objective scientific method which has not changed, with the ever changing subjectivity of individual scientists, which is ironed out by objectively testing what the scientist comes up with. That's the purpose of falsifiability and peer reviews

A good scientist will repeat experiments and keep a record of their method as well as their results so others may test their claim. No serious scientist would respect them if they don't

Its like if you perform the drop cup experiment, I can read your method and perform the same experiment to test if I get the same result you got. And if your result is based on your own subjective input, I'm likely to come to different results because there's no way for me to replicate your own subjectivity.

Nothingserious:
Do you deny human scientists speak for science or you think it is religious people who speak for science?

No one speaks for science! Scientists speak for themselves just as religious people state their own subjective understanding.

Thankfully, in science, we tend to eventually separate the wheat from the chaff.

Nothingserious:
Do you deny biases that come with funding in sciences? Do you deny biases that come with worldviews? Do you deny biases that come from even peer reviews?

I posted two examples of bias in science due to funding. Science is done by humans, and no one is claiming they are perfect beings. Their bias will be discovered however when their 'science' fails as it rightly would.

Nothingserious:
I have not condemned the scientific approaches and the great work science had done. I have simply pointed out that the human elements in science sometimes are not objectively objective and empirical.

That human element, the subject, can not help being subjective, and that is why independent peers review their work.

A scientist, for instance, may come up with a cure for cancer that is based on subjective error (for that's what it would be), but when reviewed that cure will fail because no scientist will be able to replicate said cure.

Nothingserious:
Biases and arbitrariness come in. And these are shared with the public but could be discovered after a few years or even many years and then falsified. Punishments are meted by ethical committes and the process goes on again.

You are talking about the hoaxes you presented, likely, and not science. You can't claim to be doing science and allow biases and arbitrariness to come in. Your peers will see it and throw your science in the bin, and you yourself will abandon your supposed 'science' when you find it does not work. Just try making a phone or build a house on bias and arbitrariness and let me know whom you sell it to. And God help us if you decide to perform brain surgery based on biased and arbitrary science. You'd end up in jail for murder!

Nothingserious:
Just like you pointed out in Adam not getting the implications of the spiritual death God talked about and the ultimate death at the end of the day, scientists notice blunders, falsify them and forge ahead after learning a lesson or two.

Spiritual death, lol. The famous wuruwuru to a preferred answer that blinds one to what one clearly sees. You are going to have to find it in you to forgive my inability to accept such bias and arbitrariness. My scientific use of my Jesus endowed senses make me immune to such nonsense.

Nothingserious:
Our efforts to understand and characterize the natural world are just that: efforts.

Better to try and fail than to not try at all, and those who don't try end up depending on those who do.

You just you look around you and see how many things those who put in the effort have created for you to purchase and use. Your car, phone, computer, electricity, medical procedures - God forbid you are unfortunate enough to need any - plus all the equipment that would be used for said procedure, were created by those who put in the effort while we Nigerians don't put in enough effort and so end up paying those who do.

Nothingserious:
I see you like Bible quotes. Isaiah said something about people who see something and called it something else.

Like claiming "surely die" is spiritual death?
I get you.

O Lord God Almighty, please let my spiritual death be as productive as the spiritual death of Adam and Eve, in Jesus Mighty Name, amen.

If I spiritually die and then go on to live for a tenth as long as we read they went on to live, and achieve a billionth of what we read they they went on to achieve, I think Nigeria and probably the entire world will make me at least a minor god, though I'd have to insist they don't bow down and worship me but just do greater things than I would have done.

Nothingserious:


All the time secular scientists makes claims how science had disproved God?

Can you name these scientists who claimed so or it this another of your claims that has no support?

Nothingserious:


I have said so many things.
I have replied you with additional facts.
You have seen the conversation going on within the thread.
I guess you already understand the discourse.
I don’t really know what you want me to type again here.

Please pardon me if you think I misunderstand you. No vex abeg

Honestly,

I think your 'back and forth' with budaatum and XYZ remain baseless

In other words,
You are basically repeating the same thing but budaatum keeps showing unwillingness to consider it reasonable....


It's like you're trying to fetch water with a basket....

budaatum could have summarized it with YOU ARE WRONG.....


But it seems YOU ARE WRONG wouldn't be enough to stop you....



Does it even matter??



Your analogies have been ineffective....


You can never convince budaatum, who goes as far as turning the Bible upside down in order to show that buda has a mind, with your repetitions.....


Neither can you convince me that questions your questions ........


Repetitions don't show correctness so don't be so proud of yours.....


Determine what is right to you and stop asking useless questions so that the people reading your posts won't regret reading them.....


FreeIgboho once did something similar saying he's not sure of his own existence...

Later,he claimed to have TAUGHT LordReed and every other person that met him on Nairaland how nothing is certain....



Anyone can vomit anything and call it whatever it could be called BUT that won't make the person special.....




Ultimately, I dispose as many utterances as possible everyday.......

Crystyano:




Honestly,

I think your 'back and forth' with budaatum and XYZ remain baseless

In other words,
You are basically repeating the same thing but budaatum keeps showing unwillingness to consider it reasonable....


It's like you're trying to fetch water with a basket....

budaatum could have summarized it with YOU ARE WRONG.....


But it seems YOU ARE WRONG wouldn't be enough to stop you....



Does it even matter??



Your analogies have been ineffective....


You can never convince budaatum, who goes as far as turning the Bible upside down in order to show that buda has a mind, with your repetitions.....


Neither can you convince me that questions your questions ........


Repetitions don't show correctness so don't be so proud of yours.....


Determine what is right to you and stop asking useless questions so that the people reading your posts won't regret reading them.....


FreeIgboho once did something similar saying he's not sure of his own existence...

Later,he claimed to have TAUGHT LordReed and every other person that met him on Nairaland how nothing is certain....



Anyone can vomit anything and call it whatever it could be called BUT that won't make the person special.....




Ultimately, I dispose as many utterances as possible everyday.......

The butterfly thinks himself a bird....

~An African adage~

budaatum:

Like claiming "surely die" is spiritual death?
I get you.

O Lord God Almighty, please let my spiritual death be as productive as the spiritual death of Adam and Eve, in Jesus Mighty Name, amen.

If I spiritually die and then go on to live for a tenth as long as we read they went on to live, and achieve a billionth of what we read they they went on to achieve, I think Nigeria and probably the entire world will make me at least a minor god, though I'd have to insist they don't bow down and worship me but just do greater things than I would have done.

No. This actually what I had in mind.
You twisting something clear before us all isn’t how objectivity is done.

“Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!”
‭‭Isaiah‬ ‭5:20‬ ‭AMPC‬‬
https://www.bible.com/8/isa.5.20.ampc

budaatum:

Better to try and fail than to not try at all, and those who don't try end up depending on those who do.

You just you look around you and see how many things those who put in the effort have created for you to purchase and use. Your car, phone, computer, electricity, medical procedures - God forbid you are unfortunate enough to need any - plus all the equipment that would be used for said procedure, were created by those who put in the effort while we Nigerians don't put in enough effort and so end up paying those who do.

Again you miss the point.

“Better to try and fail than not to try at all...” sounds more like using scientific tools to DESCRIBE our natural world based on how WE PERCEIVE IT AT THE MOMENT.

That is not strictly empirical. That’s like saying “ we will do our best with what is available to us at the moment so we can make progress and make amends later.

You just don’t want to concede there are elements of arbitrariness and human influences in choice of varied scientific outcomes with subjective minds.

The texts and articles have said it. But you keep arguing.
You have tried extricate scientists from science and asked the difference between what science says and what scientists say.

What is the difference between what science says in science texts and articles and what scientists TELL US science is saying.

Are all the books, texts, articles, journals we read not results of scientific opinions of scientists?

LordReed:


Can you name these scientists who claimed so or it this another of your claims that has no support?

You aren’t aware so many skeptical scientists think and say science had made belief in God unnecessary? Or that science has shown God doesn’t exist? You aren’t aware or you will be aware after I point out 5 scientists who expressed such views?

Nothingserious:


You aren’t aware so many skeptical scientists think and say science had made belief in God unnecessary? Or that science has shown God doesn’t exist? You aren’t aware or you will be aware after I point out 5 scientists who expressed such views?

Yeah please tell me 5 scientists that say science has shown god doesn't exist.

Nothingserious:


The butterfly thinks himself a bird....

~An African adage~

The chimpanzee thinks himself a human being

LordReed:


Yeah please tell me 5 scientists that say science has shown god doesn't exist.

Very characteristic of you.
5 scientists who think so?

So do we agree that science has really said nothing about God, the supernatural and miracles? Or do I also need 5 scientists to confirm this?

Crystyano:


The chimpanzee thinks himself a human being

When next you see people engaging in an important discussion, you don’t really have to join if you have nothing to say. Just sit it and watch by the sidelines. Your time will come to make an input.

You just filled up that response with superfluous verbiage with less to no content and relevance to issue at discourse.

Just so you know, they said chimpanzees share common ancestry (DNAs) with humans. So your adage made no sense.

Nothingserious:


Very characteristic of you.
5 scientists who think so?

So do we agree that science has really said nothing about God, the supernatural and miracles? Or do I also need 5 scientists to confirm this?

You like moving goal posts when you discover you are in a bind. You claimed that scientists say that science has proved there is no god, asked to produce evidence of these scientists, now you have changed the music to "science has really said nothing about God, the supernatural and miracles".

We are well aware of the limits of science, you on the other hand are not aware of your own limits.

budaatum:

No sir, I have not contradicted myself at all. It is you who mixes the objective scientific method which has not changed, with the ever changing subjectivity of individual scientists, which is ironed out by objectively testing what the scientist comes up with. That's the purpose of falsifiability and peer reviews

A good scientist will repeat experiments and keep a record of their method as well as their results so others may test their claim. No serious scientist would respect them if they don't

Its like if you perform the drop cup experiment, I can read your method and perform the same experiment to test if I get the same result you got. And if your result is based on your own subjective input, I'm likely to come to different results because there's no way for me to replicate your own subjectivity.


No one speaks for science! Scientists speak for themselves just as religious people state their own subjective understanding.

Thankfully, in science, we tend to eventually separate the wheat from the chaff.


I posted two examples of bias in science due to funding. Science is done by humans, and no one is claiming they are perfect beings. Their bias will be discovered however when their 'science' fails as it rightly would.


That human element, the subject, can not help being subjective, and that is why independent peers review their work.

A scientist, for instance, may come up with a cure for cancer that is based on subjective error (for that's what it would be), but when reviewed that cure will fail because no scientist will be able to replicate said cure.


You are talking about the hoaxes you presented, likely, and not science. You can't claim to be doing science and allow biases and arbitrariness to come in. Your peers will see it and throw your science in the bin, and you yourself will abandon your supposed 'science' when you find it does not work. Just try making a phone or build a house on bias and arbitrariness and let me know whom you sell it to. And God help us if you decide to perform brain surgery based on biased and arbitrary science. You'd end up in jail for murder!


Spiritual death, lol. The famous wuruwuru to a preferred answer that blinds one to what one clearly sees. You are going to have to find it in you to forgive my inability to accept such bias and arbitrariness. My scientific use of my Jesus endowed senses make me immune to such nonsense.

If you aren’t comfortable with the Pauline writings in the book of Romans on death that came as a result of the moral failure of Adam and life that came through Jesus Christ, then you shouldn’t appeal to the Adamic death in Genesis. Scripture interprets scriptures.

The title of the article was scientific hoaxes in history. If you like twist the arguments all you like, the article is about frauds that happened in science, not in philosophy or in religion or in economics. Just like the arguments are going on in Quantum physics, if tomorrow we get breakthroughs on what to believe in , the scientists will take the glory and the records will go into the annals. But because those backfired even though people believed in them for many years, it has become distasteful to you. No. You don’t twist facts before us.

Peer reviews may reduce the elements of subjectivity but cannot completely rule them out esp where there are gray areas on various outcomes and where philosophical or moral arguments might apply in the application of the research findings. It happens. It will still happen. Why? Because simply describes what it SEES NOW. Once the conditions of nature or tools change tomorrow, the scientist will observe and DESCRIBE another thing they see.
They use objective and empirical methods to describe but with interference from human subjectivity.

Perhaps you failed to understand that scientists all the time speak for science. Scientists all the time wrote scientific journals , articles and texts that shape the works and beliefs of so many other younger scientists who may not have the wherewithal to read-work and reconfirm what they had done earlier, scientists all the time speak for science in defense of their results.
Science does not speak. Scientists speak based on what they observe and describe at any point in time.

We have so many influential scientists who speak and have been speaking and will continue to write and speak.

“Evolutionists ... have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin

“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism... We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

Richard Lewontin

“The social scientist is in a difficult, if not impossible position. On the one hand there is the temptation to see all of society as one's autobiography writ large, surely not the path to general truth. On the other hand, there is the attempt to be general and objective by pretending that one knows nothing about the experience of being human, forcing the investigator to pretend that people usually know and tell the truth about important issues, when we all know from our own lives how impossible that is.”

Richard Lewontin

LordReed:


You like moving goal posts when you discover you are in a bind. You claimed that scientists say that science has proved there is no god, asked to produce evidence of these scientists, now you have changed the music to "science has really said nothing about God, the supernatural and miracles".

We are well aware of the limits of science, you on the other hand are not aware of your own limits.

I have been clear on my responses.

I am surprised you didn’t ask for 5 scientists who had claimed there is no God and the supernatural based on science. I am actually suprised. So no need for 5 scientists this time around.

So you mean there are limits in sciences?
What are the limitations of sciences?

I am wondering the basis for your godlessness and skeptical worldview. Do you mind telling us why you don’t believe in God and the supernatural.

Nothingserious:


I have been clear on my responses.

I am surprised you didn’t ask for 5 scientists who had claimed there is no God and the supernatural based on science. I am actually suprised. So no need for 5 scientists this time around.

So you mean there are limits in sciences?
What are the limitations of sciences?

I am wondering the basis for your godlessness and skeptical worldview. Do you mind telling us why you don’t believe in God and the supernatural.

I asked but you couldn't supply it so now you've shifted the goalpost. This is your MO, shift goal posts once you realise you are in a bind. Then you try to shift the locus of the discussion to avoid admitting your gaffe.

Provide the 5 scientists that say science has shown god doesn't exist. This is the 3rd straight request without a proper response. LMAO!

Nothingserious:
Scripture interprets scriptures.

I guess this pretty much sums up your view. Its why you also claim "scientist speak for science", as if science speaks.

People interpret Scripture, Nothing. The huge number of pastors subjectively doing so in church is sufficient evidence for this, and it's why Christ is written to have sent you the Comforter so you too can read, understand and interpret Scripture for your very own self just as he did.

Scientist (and pastors, as far as Scripture goes), state their own subjective views which other scientists will subjectively review, but since all scientists can't all share the same subjective view, subjectivity is eventually ironed out by testing. That's why science involves experimentation, as in the testing of claims.

Your phone, your car, your television, the electricity in your house, etc, are all results of objective science. While subjective 'science' is like our untested useless juju.

You will forgive me for stopping here. I've said all I need say on the subject.

Nothingserious:

You just don’t want to concede there are elements of arbitrariness and human influences in choice of varied scientific outcomes with subjective minds.

Really? Despite the numerous times I've said so myself and provided links to the pseudoscience of the drug and cigarette industries?

Sigh.

My Lord, aren't the Gods just so amazing?

Someone just liked this somewhat relevant post as if to remind me we've been here before discussing science with an individual who can't separate objective science from his subjective religious views.

budaatum:


Really? Despite the numerous times I've said so myself and provided links to the pseudoscience of the drug and cigarette industries?

Sigh.

You contradicted yourself severally.

Nothingserious:


You contradicted yourself severally.

That's what people say when they can't get their heads around what I do say due to their own subjectivity.

budaatum:


I guess this pretty much sums up your view. Its why you also claim "scientist speak for science", as if science speaks.

People interpret Scripture, Nothing. The huge number of pastors subjectively doing so in church is sufficient evidence for this, and it's why Christ is written to have sent you the Comforter so you too can read, understand and interpret Scripture for your very own self just as he did.

Scientist (and pastors, as far as Scripture goes), state their own subjective views which other scientists will subjectively review, but since all scientists can't all share the same subjective view, subjectivity is eventually ironed out by testing. That's why science involves experimentation, as in the testing of claims.

Your phone, your car, your television, the electricity in your house, etc, are all results of objective science. While subjective 'science' is like our untested useless juju.

You will forgive me for stopping here. I've said all I need say on the subject.

Sometimes your illustrations from the scripture appear to be off the point.

You are mixing things up actually.
People study the scriptures and try to offer interpretations. But their interpretations must be viewed in line with what the other scriptures in the Bible are saying.

Isn’t that the issue you failed to grasp when I say scientists often speak for science?

Who are the humans arguing that science had made belief in God and the supernatural impossible or unnecessary? SCIENTISTS.

Who are the humans arguing and concluding God does not exist as they had been unable
to empirically test his existence? SCIENTISTS.

Who defend their position about origin of humans and other living things not sourced from God but from evolution? SCIENTISTS.

But do we have any scientific text that had said anything about God, miracles , the supernatural, morality? None.

Can we say science has said anything here? No we can’t. Are they books and articles and debates championed to support the points above? Yes there are. If science did not say all of the above and yet materials abound on them, who would have made those materials available? HUMAN SCIENTISTS.

budaatum:


That's what people say when they can't get their heads around what I do say due to their own subjectivity.

Then you need to check again how you present self-contradictory arguments if I am not the only one noticing it.

budaatum:
My Lord, aren't the Gods just so amazing?

Someone just liked this somewhat relevant post as if to remind me we've been here before discussing science with an individual who can't separate objective science from his subjective religious views.

LoL that someone was me!

LordReed:


I asked but you couldn't supply it so now you've shifted the goalpost. This is your MO, shift goal posts once you realise you are in a bind. Then you try to shift the locus of the discussion to avoid admitting your gaffe.

Provide the 5 scientists that say science has shown god doesn't exist. This is the 3rd straight request without a proper response. LMAO!

1. Some say science had made belief in God and the supernatural unnecessary.

2. Some had said science had buried God

3. Some had said science had disproved God.

4. Some had said God doesn’t exist as they could not test him out with empirical tools.

These 4 cover whatever point you think I had claimed in the course of this discussion.

Are they wrong from your point of view? Which do you like and this is okay?

If you think they are all wrong, is it safe to assume with you that science has not said anything about God and the supernatural or made belief in God unnecessary?

I also asked you why you don’t believe in God.
From your response, science isn’t responsible for your skepticism. What could have informed your decision to not believe in God and the supernatural phenomena?

budaatum:
My Lord, aren't the Gods just so amazing?

Someone just liked this somewhat relevant post as if to remind me we've been here before discussing science with an individual who can't separate objective science from his subjective religious views.

This is irrelevant to this discussion unless you are making presumptions that I am overtly religious and anti-science .

Surprisingly I haven’t made any defense for or against science. I haven’t also made any defense for religion in our presentations.

If you made such presumptions prematurely, then that’s bad cos it utterly contradicts what you have been struggling to say in our discourse.

Nothingserious:


1. Some say science had made belief in God and the supernatural unnecessary.

2. Some had said science had buried God

3. Some had said science had disproved God.

4. Some had said God doesn’t exist as they could not test him out with empirical tools.

These 4 cover whatever point you think I had claimed in the course of this discussion.

Are they wrong from your point of view? Which do you like and this is okay?

If you think they are all wrong, is it safe to assume with you that science has not said anything about God and the supernatural or made belief in God unnecessary?

I also asked you why you don’t believe in God.
From your response, science isn’t responsible for your skepticism. What could have informed your decision to not believe in God and the supernatural phenomena?

Not going to answer any question of yours when you haven't answered mine.

LordReed:


Not going to answer any question of yours when you haven't answered mine.

As if I care.

Maybe you don’t why your don’t believe in God or the supernatural. Obviously it has nothing to do with proofs.

Do I also need 5 scientists to ask you?