Matthew Le God

Would you like to face a jury that used faith rather than evidence?

I've address this in the rebuttal you keep avoiding.

I have answered it. You keep avoiding the rebuttal.

My answer to that is in the rebuttal you keep ignoring.

Because we have been discussing the God of the Bible. The Bible overwhelmingly uses male pronouns—He, Him, and His—to refer to God. Additionally, God is often called Father, King, and Lord, all traditionally masculine titles. So we can add pronouns to the list of % and counting.

A) Religious people and scripture say their God wants everyone to know he exists. B) They say that his is capable of knowing what evidence you'd need to believe in him. And yet... he refuses to provide it. A and B can not both be true if he fails to provide it.

Again you ignored the rebuttal.

Again, you ignored the rebuttal.

1) Being wrong on one thing does not mean something else you've said is wrong. Using science for one thing, but no evidence for the other. 2) You failed to address anything I said in that part. No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith.

Anything I believe in, I believe due to evidence of past experience to justify that belief. It isn't infallible, but it is a reliable path to truth that doesn't run into the same issues as faith does when it can be used to support two contradictory positions.

In advance of evidence... means without evidence currently. Do you think courts should use such a system? It is not a reliable path to truth.

1) Einstein being a scientist and talking about a belief in a God has no impact on his relevance to the truth. He is not using the scientific method and is making an unsubstantiated leap. 2) You said 'all evidence' pointed to it being impossible. I gave you 3 pieces of pre Wright brother flight evidence that counter that. So it was not 'all evidence' at all.

In religious terms, faith is the excuse you have to believe something without evidence.

Science does not make infallible proclamations. If new evidence comes to light, that changes views. Religions claim an infallible God. It is not open to change in light of new evidence. It is a deeply flawed system to get to the truth.

Bullshit. I discussed faith in its Biblical definition in this thread.

Asking for a definition of wishy washy extremely vague terms is not nonsense.

1) Einstein saw "God" as a metaphor for the laws of nature and the mysterious order of the universe — not as a personal deity. "I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings." — Letter to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein, 1929 (Spinoza's God is essentially the universe and its laws — impersonal and not anthropomorphic.) "The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesse, the Bible a collection of honorable but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish." — From a 1954 letter to philosopher Eric Gutkind 2) Your 'all evidence' before the Wright Brothers flight that it was impossible claim is nonsense. a) Bernoulli’s principle and aerodynamic studies showed that wings could generate lift. b) Otto Lilienthal and others proved that controlled, human-carrying flight was possible without engines. c) Lighter, more powerful internal combustion engines made powered flight physically feasible.

First you'd need to clarify 'in life' and 'scientific base'. Still wishy washy and vague. What 'in life' does not have a 'scientific base'?

I asked what 'beyond science' means. Please answer.

He has clearly had enough of the Wednesday ownership...

No, 'beyond science' is wishy washy vague nonsense. It requires clarification.

We already established you can't work out %, now you are admitting you can't count! You are having a shocker Turkish!

"Beyond science" What does that mean? Very vague and wishy washy.

You can base things on previous actions as evidence.

What is his explanation? He isn't going to be using science to make leap to God, so him being a scientist is irrelevant.