Science is trial and error which is by its own definition unscientific. Thats called learning by mistake.. which would make our children the best scientist in the world look at everything they learn by saying things wrong.. doing things wrong.....
soo..... yes The scientific method is, in itself, unscientific.
No. No it isn't. Science cannot be unscientific because it is science. Science is all about learning from mistakes to come to the conclusion that is most likely to be correct. You are mistaking the layman's understanding of science for actual science, which, while typical, is always incorrect.
Scientists don't decide something then try to prove that their something exists and deny any evidence to the contrary. They conceive a hypothesis--what the layman for some odd reason brands a theory--then test it through experimentation. The evidence gathered in that experiment is then used to modify the hypothesis, and the sequence is repeated until the experiments continuously show the hypothesis to be the correct interpretation, at which point the hypothesis is given the term theory, which for scientists is the closest they will come to saying fact. Theory for scientists is a completely different word from that used by the layman, hence why scientists are often extremely frustrated when people use the idiotic phrase "It's just a theory!"
But back to what I meant. Ok He creates a rock that he can not lift then creates a way to lift it. but I never made the claim that"god" is omnipotent or omnicient. I just said he exists.. you want proof. then hows this
Then try defining your terms before you simply toss around a word. It really helps narrow down what we are discussing.
Anything that one person imagines exists even if in that persons head alone.
False.
Belief has a power in it.
Can you prove this?
This is not to say that if everyone on earth believes that the moon is made of cheese then it wil actually be made of cheese. but if everyone on earth believes that chocolate tastes like strawberries and straberries like chocolate then by consensus alone that is how it is... If everyone believes that people are wrong and red is actully joooga then it becomes jooga.
Nonono. See, what you are saying here does not define reality, merely how we interpret specific elements of reality. The taste of chocolate and strawberries will not change if all humans come to a consensus that one tastes like the other: we will simply define them as tasting like the other. Similarly, in basic ten mathematics 6x9 will not equal 58 no matter how many people come to the consensus that it does. We cannot change reality through belief. We can reinterpret it, and mess with semantics, but that interpretation will be incorrect, and potentially dangerous, depending on what we reinterpret. Obviously reinterpreting the taste of chocolate and strawberries probably won't harm anything, but making elementary mistakes with math can and will.
The belief in god in and of itself makes him exist in one way or another. however I believe that the gods of the different religion are aspects of the same being. Hence the wiccans would not be going to "hell " because they themselves worship a
"holy trinity"
Your statement here has done nothing to prove your claim of God's existence. You simply state that belief has a power--an assumption that I am about to prove incorrect--and then state that because humanity believes in God, He must exist.
Sorry, but reality doesn't work that way. Belief cannot possibly cause something to come into existance, because that violates all laws of physics, and we have never, NEVER had ANY evidence at ALL that such a thing occurs.
Case in point: millions of people imagine themselves to be richer. I myself am imagining that a 100 dollar bill is appearing in my hand at this very instant.
...
Nothing happened. Why? Because it is impossible.
On top of this if you read into the post well engough I Said Prove it not just ot those disproving his existance but to those proving it as well
...
Did you just tell us to do your work for you? Sorry, but no. We are arguing against the existence of God. You are arguing for the existence of God. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon you. We simply must offer evidence against your claims, which is exactly what we've done.
