Can science refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt?

Maimonides

The only path to knowing God is through the study of science - and for that reason the bible opens with a description of creation.

A dedicated believer in God will not be swayed by science bearing man's continued responsibility to name things without names nor will he be swayed by the most complex mathmatical equations...As faith is the evidence for things unseen, all science need do in order to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt is disprove faith and testably demonstrate that faith always leads to incorrect conclusions.No end time predictions.
No mutation predictions.What will it take to dismantle the concept and essence of faith from our world?No educated guesses, as they require faith - lol.

Rightfully and thankfully so.Yet, to the matter of debate, I concede that science cannot successfully refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt without first demonstrating in a testable fashion that faith based theories will never lend themselves as a viable and potential means to a conclusive, evidence based reality.Without this demonstratable test, the "god hypothesis", and other faith based methods can only be deemed more/less reliable than other methods.Logically, it cannot be wholly refuted.

If by viable, you mean necessarily possible then I am serious.
If by viable you imply probable or testable, I'd be hard pressed to stake that claim. Henceforth, if faith based methods may prove wrong and right in light of their lack of conclusive evidence, some assertions maintain the possibility to lend themselves as a potential means to a conclusive, evidence based reality.I would discount a method or faith based assertion only if it could be objectively verified it was indeed false, and therefore, a demonstrable assertion in the most true sense. Agreed.
For this reason it cannot be wholly refuted. You cannot fail a test that hasn't concluded or taken place.
That the method is deemed less reliable does not negate said hypothesis as a potentially successful method of reaching conclusive, evidence based realities ...It simply makes it less reliable. The tests do not seem as important, as we appear to agree that objectively verfiable methods are, for all intensive purposes, more reliable than subjectively unverfiable methods.Any method claiming superiority to an evidence based method of deduction may be construed and percieved as arrogance or faith.They are often held together in high regard.

The term does not seem as opposed to itself as you would suggest.
Unless you overlay the definition of a theory with that of a law.
Tho they are, after all, closely related we need not muddy these waters any further.Here a faith based theory is simply a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural by its very nature of not yet being concluded.The question becomes, can it still be classified as faith based once invariable conclusions under the same conditions that demonstrate an evidence based reality can be reached ?

(1) theory - a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.

​

(2) law - (in philosophy, science, etc.) a. a statement of a relation or sequence of phenomena invariable under the same conditions.
Agreed, as I have already stated this numerous times. If it is not falsifiable, logically, it cannot be wholly refuted.
The assertion that a faith based method is false only because it has not been proven true fits squarely within the argumentum ad ignorantiam.For instance, there's a logical fallacy that presumes that mere lack of evidence of innocence of a crime is instead evidence of guilt.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of guilt cannot be taken as evidence of innocence.
We all know absence of evidence is not evidence.

Thank you for the reply bluescat. lol - as it seems they indeed share a similiar meaning, I also find that agreeable bluescat. Preferred actually. In light of their potentially circumstantial evidence, as opposed to actual objective evidence, faith based assertions are accordingly reduced within many circles to merely assumptions or guesses.The majority of the time they have been referred to within my posts as hypothesis, or rather simple assertions. One instance within post 234 being the exception. And altho these inconclusive assertions can be enveloped by the general definition of a theory - that being "a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural" - they indeed resonate better as hypothesis. I thank you for conceding to this end.In conclusion, science cannot refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt. As faith is the evidence for things unseen, all science need do in order to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt is disprove faith and testably demonstrate that faith invariably leads to incorrect conclusions. We all know that this cannot be done.Any assertion that a faith based method is false only because it has not been proven true fits squarely within the argumentum ad ignorantiam. And so, faith based assertions remain as hypothesis' that - without conclusion and henceforth, any testability - cannot be wholly refuted beyond all reason or logic.

Thank you for the reply onifre ... C'mon onifre, you know it doesn't depend on that definition.
Realistically it depends on what is considered an 'argument of ignorance'.lol - but I'll spare with you nonetheless ...If proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is required for conviction of a criminal defendant, and we are to assimilate the term scientifically, it should follow that reasonable doubt exists when a factfinder cannot say with moral and evidential certainty that a hypothesis is false or a particular fact exists.It must be more than an imaginary doubt. It is often defined judicially as such doubt as would cause a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance.When considering the possibility of God, personal or impersonal, one could certainly hesitate before voting guilty given the lack of evidence considering God's existence or non-existence, as well as the relativity of his existence being a matter of importance. I would not be impressed with disproving an arbitrary peoples God.
Any evidence acquired should expose Him as a fraud universally, as opposed to personally.
Irrefutability beyond all reasonable doubt should defy demographics. You're absolutely right.
This can be equivocated to a matter of faith ...
Faith in the non existence of the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scriptures.Though your logic would seem flawed by deducing God does not exist because a biblical Abrahamic deity was not factually evidenced.What if God had nothing to do with him and his descendants in reality?
If God does exist, and you uncover his "emulators" and "imitators" as frauds, does this somehow negate God's existence.Of course not ... we know where this assertion leads. And others have proven insightful in retrospect. Indeed ... Nothing, as the conclusion of faith is the very evidence which would be needed to establish it's specific degree of reliability.
[argumentum ad ignoratiam peeks through curtains] I agree with this assertion. This is the conclusion of your personal conviction, blended with your interpretive reasoning abilities ... I'd run with it.If God is, He will catch up ...

Thank you for the reply onifre ... I digress - the definition does indeed play a factor to an extent.
In reality, to establish the essence of "reasonable doubt" requires a preponderance of evidence.
It should follow that a scientific preponderance of evidence must be objectively evidential.
We have not a stitch of objective evidence to this end, much less a preponderance thereof.
In light of the lack of such evidence, reasonable doubt can surely not be established by definition.Henceforth, it is the definition of reasonable doubt, combined with a complete lack of verifiable evidence, that forces such a debate into the argument of ignorance that it realistically is.The scientific community is of course free to adapt and modify the processes and requirements of reasonable doubt to serve it's agenda.Although it is my understanding that they are better at finding facts than changing them. Actually, it is for this reason I admire them so much ... Man ordains the definitions ... reality sustains them.I concede peoples interpretation of the definition of reasonable doubt is subjective.The definition itself is objective though.That somebody applies an alternate method of reasoning to reach a subjective, unverifiable conclusion, and then claims the method as reasonable doubt does not make it so.The exception being in their own mind ... lol - we're talking about the God associated with religious thoughts, where facts are impossible to come by, and objective evidence is nonexistent apart from faith ... which can, of course, not be verified as objective until the faith is concluded, thus rendering it, for all intensive purposes, useless and irrelevant. Winning a debate does not support the importance of God's existence, as victory in a debate will only provide subjective evidence.Your second query is the important one if we are to adopt and utilize the method of reasonable doubt onifre.How can we employ a method that requires "a reasonable person to hesitate before acting in a matter of importance" if we have not first established what is important.That is ...If we do not truly understand the importance behind a matter, how can we know when to hesitate?
If we cannot hesitate before the appropriate matters of importance, we cannot employ reasonable doubt ...We need to establish these matters of importance primarily, before we can employ the method.For instance, hypothetically speaking of course, if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity, wouldn't it cause one to hesitate before voting He does not exist.Respectively, if it is not a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity it would be nice to evidence this as well before hearing the case.Being that we can't evidence either, apart from faith, this too can be assigned an 'argument of ignorance' tag. This implies to me, that the Abrahamic God of Judeo-Christian scripture makes the most sense to you.I can see that line of thought, but perhaps from a different perspective.His scriptures support the fact that no evidence will be provided as to His existence other than faith.Eye witness testimony must fall in this category, for even if one of Abrahams descendants miraculously lived 3000 years to tell us the tale, we would not believe him ...Chances are we could also identify the processes within his body that allowed him to succeed into such a ripe old age - so even his
curious evasion of death would become no more than a matter of faith.Though some may still refer to it as a miracle, or evidence of some sort ...Again, His scriptures support the fact that no evidence will be provided as to His existence other than faith.At least He is consistent and honest regarding this fact.To His credit, no other evidences have surfaced to His end. Have you deduced this because I have not conceded to the God of Judeo-Christian scripture?
Rest assured, He has not been discarded, lest He is The One ... Apologies if I offended you, as this was not my intent.
I may agree that God is responsible for the forces of the universe and that He is everything and anything, yet you are also guilty, if such a decree could be made, of creating your own God concept.
You are the one slingin' 'roun old religious names, and rightfully so.
Culturally, we are inundated with traditional dogmatic ideologies.
They seem as good a place as any to begin making any deductions. lol - is this assertion certified and official?
What aspects of reality establish it as such?Apart from Judeo-Christian scripture, of course, exactly what religious texts and spiritual books qualify to infer descriptions of God? I, personally, have yet to divulge any description of how I view nature, much less callously slapped a God label on it.That is not to imply I have not seen it done, or that I agree with others doing it.I do however feel, that if God Is, ultimately nature and the universe will be tied to his essence in some way.If it is a matter of importance, and God Is, then He will relay it unequivocally.Being that it cannot be evidenced yet, I feel it is unimportant to be able to establish such a perspective.Even tho He may, I do not require the God to supply His plans regarding nature and the universe at this time. Whoaa - easy fella ... lol
How does this instance differ from ... This is nothing more than the behavior you abhor.However, I do think that some traditional dogmatic trigger words may benefit by being repainted, providing their definitions are not watered down in the process.Man's ordained definitions of these words have been biasly effected by his own irresponsible nature.Yet to interpret things properly we would be wise not to lend any bias to each word, as well as it's corresponding definition.For instance - upon hearing the word salvation, many will associate it with Christianity and it's blemishes before they associate salvation with an act, source, or state of protection.Whether or not Christianity can truly offer an act, source, or state of protection is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence what we need protecting against unless we place faith in the concept of sin.Respectively, upon hearing the word the word evolution, many will associate it with an attack against God before they associate evolution with a peaceful process of gradual, progressive change or development.Whether or not evolution can truly offer a complete account of the gradual, progressive changes and developments our universe has undergone is subjective on the basis that we can't evidence the past unless we place faith in the concept of science.To borrow from the distinguished Rrhain, since we interact with the universe via observation, and since observation can never be known to be perfect, then it should, and does, follow that the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms but which will be tossed as soon as we come up with new observations that contradict them.These truly are matters of interpretation and faith ... lol - fair enough ... By all rights, He knows what you look like, whether you recognize Him or not.
If He Is, He will recognize you.
No sign necessary...Just bring a book as the waiting time is currently indefinite.Again, thank you for the exchange onifre.Edited by Bailey, : spelling

Thank you for the reply onifre ... Their pursuit of systematic knowledge regarding our natural physical world.
Science is driven by observation and experimentation in a material world onifre.
By what precise application of facts and principles will they refute the existence of God? In a court of law it is predominantly based on physical evidence.
Regardless, I will go to this length with you here.People have their own personal measures ...Science has its own.Physical evidence. At the least, to the wise and unwise alike, it serves as a crutch ...Then again, most handicap people are equally useless and irrelevant. That will still require faith as the evidence is subjective, tho I digress ...It would be better for the case if we knew it inherently as a physical truth.
If we could perhaps somehow learn it through physical properties.We cannot even know if it is a matter of importance to commune with God in some capacity until we find a law as conclusive to that end as ...* "Theory of Don't Jump From Plane Without Parachute"
* "Theory of Don't Kill Your Neighbor"If only we could establish something solid like those ...Reasonably, we would have a clearer understanding of whether we wanted to acknowledge His existence or commune back occasionally. See above.
lol - but keep in mind, these are truths we've learned through trial and error and they are variable. The faithful in this instance has not posited God does exist.Science has posited whether it is possible for them to refute the "god hypothesis" beyond all reasonable doubt.The onus is on them.I am a small voice in the community, but I say we do not have sufficient, if any, physical evidence to observe this conclusion. I'm familiar with your position in that regard.
Only a few spiritual ideas of God continue to make sense to me.I guess all it takes is one though - lol. God concepts belonging to Einstein and other such prominent deists.
They often set forth an interesting perspective.
Their impersonal view causes them to swim in different streams than the damned & glorified. No - lol
Just wanted to make sure my collection was certified. You know ...
Really really real. When it becomes a matter of survival. You'll get it hang in there ... Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.Absence of evidence is not evidence.
The exception being in one's own mind ... Now you’re making sense ... No onifre, this is our point.
We share it ...Do you disagree with the assertion that believing in sin requires faith? Again we agree - they wouldn't.Yet sin came before religion ...That is, the acts within the concept of sin took place well before it was actually defined as a word.
It’s basically a bunch of religious folk trying to describe human nature. Didn't mean to strike a nerve.
Poor choice of word. It gives an account of evolution - doesn't it?
Now I'm confused - lolNot sure if you can be credited, as it doesn't take much. Whoa - i've got too many classes as it is.
lol - no more biology 'til spring tho ...Though it not my passion, I have no disdain for the ToE.
This is not to say I find it a flawless model, but it serves it's purpose well.It is a remarkable collection of observations ... lol
One needs faith to claim the God.
One must interpret argumentum ad ignoratiam to refute the "god hypothesis".I thought for sure I gave it away when I said ... Yet I don't wish to reduce the legitimacy of science in any way.This is just how reality works ...* Things happen ...
* We observe ...
* We document ...
* We miss some things ...
* We find more things ...
* We put the observations where they go ...It would save a lot of time if we could locate all evidences in succession.Nevertheless, considering we interact with the universe via observation and observation can never be known to be perfect,
the best we can come up with are statements that we treat as axioms, even tho they are not as you point out.
If and when we can document new contradictory observations, we discard yesterday's news ...You disagree ? I agree ... I don't ... God ... I can't even confirm if He has a penis actually ... One word ... I'll give ya three guesses. (left this one wide open - lol) It's only fair you begin to learn your opponent's position.I divulged enough so you could deduce a truth.
Chances are you have deduced it ...
As well as a myriad of misconceptions and prejudices. I'm not being sarcastic here.
I appreciate debating with you.Your down to Earth.Now put on that Marley cd and smoke one for me ...

Thank you for the reply Stile ... I was under the impression science employs objective physical evidence to declare that which is reality within our natural material world.I must be mistaken ...As I cannot recall any, would you be as kind as to enlighten us as to what subjective facets of reality can be acceptable to reach scientific conclusions ...As well, if not by physical evidence, by what other objective means may reality be otherwise declared?Please be specific. Of course it is not a personal measure regardless, as science is based within a community, not one person.Lil' "scientists" forget that sometimes ... You forgot "And can be evidenced as such" ...
Science observes and documents facts that actually exist and can be evidenced as such.To His credit, the God does not fit such a mold ... Science observes and documents facts that can be evidenced to exist apart from one's imagination.To His credit, the God does not fit such a mold ... Your correct here Stile ... kinda.
It's not a fault on anyone’s behalf ... it is simply reality.You have suggested science operates within realities confines.
The God does not evidence whether He is a part of reality.I agree with these statements, yet your logic seems flawed ...If not by your assertions, what precise application of facts and principles would science refute an existence not evidenced in reality?Please be specific. Dr. Bishop ... is that you?
lol - I like X Files and Fringe as much as the next guy, but ...Reality itself is sustained by the options you propose.What is able to be evidenced outside of the natural, material, physical realm that does not require faith?Respectively, outside of the natural, material, physical realm, what realities have been evidenced by the scientific community?Please be specific. I agree Stile ...
Yet, considering your above statement ...Until the God can be evidenced within reality, science is, for all intensive purposes, off limits from such a defunct proclamation.Even more so when the God is evidenced.See the conundrum ... Wannabe scientists with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such. I agree ... let us go a step further.If something cannot be shown to be part of reality ...
If it is limited to our imaginations, then yes, these things are not touchable by science.Your words verbatim.In conclusion, science is not in the business of refuting imagination.
Unless, that is, science has forthright objective evidence that refutes a specific imagination.Any "scientist" operating outside of this reality is a charlatan, and a disgrace to his peers. No better than a pharisee ...Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.The exception being in one's own mind ...Thank you for participating.

Thank you for supplying specifics - lol
Fail Thank you for conceding to this end Stile. According to scripture no evidence, objective or otherwise, will be available, apart from faith.
The God is subjectively evidenced by the fact that you, nor anyone, cannot provide any.
Fail. Again, I thank you for conceding to this end ... lol - Thank you for your complete absence of precise, specific applications of facts and principles.I do not assert their nonexistence either.
Thank you for conceding to this end.Fail I digress ... and rather concede.
It seems wise to say nobody can be certain. Why not?
Anything more would currently be in our imaginations with the God. Good question Stile ...Apparently by looking in the kitchen and not seeing the God. Reality suggested our sphere as a disc and reality supports the disc is a sphere.
The perception of reality itself is limited by these factors Stile.
Perception is not invariable and reality can be sneaky .... Thank you for conceding to this end.
I agree that doesn't mean "such a thing" doesn't exist. Thank you for conceding to this end.If it would be immature to assume something specific exists before we have any evidence ...
Surely, it would be immature to assume something specific does not exist before we have any evidence. Thank you for conceding to this end. Revelations can be enlightening.
Ask the flat earth people. Thank you for conceding to this end. Again ...Wannabe scientists with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such. Is this to imply that reality cannot exist within the imagination?That is a stretch by even my generous standards ... Thank you for conceding to this end. Nope ... even then it's not.
Even if you looked in the kitchen ...
Ask the big scientist if you don't believe the lil' one.In conclusion, unless science has forthright objective evidence that supports a specific reality contradicting a specific imagination, science is not in the business of refuting imagination.Nevertheless, wannabe "scientists" with no integrity will work within the boundaries of argumentum ad ignoratiam to establish imaginary concepts as such.
Respectively, actual scientists with integrity will work within the boundaries of reality, and their professional scope, to establish evidential facts as such.
Do not be deceived, any "scientist" operating outside of this reality is a charlatan, and a disgrace to his peers. No better than a pharisee ...Mere lack of evidence of the God's importance and existence is not, instead, somehow evidence of His unimportance and nonexistence.
Similarly, mere lack of evidence of the God's unimportance and nonexistence cannot be taken as evidence of His importance and existence.
Absence of evidence is not evidence.The exception being in one's own mind ...

Thank you for the reply Straggler. I believe I am pleased we agree Straggler.
I concede no product of any individual's imagination is any more evidenced or true than any other.
Unless the imagagination has an evidential basis within a shared framework.Perhaps, to imagine a house and base the completion of this potential reality from the concepts imagined.It remains, the God cannot be evidenced apart from faith.
I would be extremely surprised if it was any other way ...Edited by Bailey, : spelling

Thank you for the exchange Straggler.
Hope all is well in your camp onifre ... It seems some personal and most spiritual realities await in the wings of one's imagination.
That being said, they are both highly subjective as far as I can reason ... I suppose if you had an imaginary friend that you hadn't seen in a while, you could have faith you would see it soon.Though if the character is not produced in your imagination at some point in the future, such faith cannot be considered evidence ...Not even by the imaginee. I concede.
In the Torah, all Adam maintains as physical objective evidence is a pair of leather pants.
Yet, as long as they exist, he cannot prove to anyone that they are a gift from the God.The God eliminates access to the Garden, as well as the two Trees.And so, we find Adam left wondering whether he ever actually heard the God and whether he even really ate from the Tree of Knowledge.Or was it all in his imagination?lol - yet, if so, where the hell did the leather pants come from?
They would be the bit that caused him to question his reality. I, for one, appreciate this disclaimer, though my spirituality is steeped in hypothetical theory based on subjective emotions.
For instance, I have faith in Love, which is, for all intents & purposes, a figment of everyone's imagination. Fortunately I missed the lil' yellow religious bus.
Though, my imagination is not stifled by heresy ...Honestly, to the God's credit, I have not "seen" anything physically tangible in order that He may be evidenced by even me alone.It is extremely hard for me to believe that the God will physically reveal Himself to any one person.
I would be much less surprised if He is evidenced in a way that no one can realistically deny.I employ as "evidence" of the God, though hardly, the potential reality of love being unfolded and exposed as a universal Law that cannot be defied.
Reality seems to support this in the sense that humanity, and potentially the universe, typically prospers when the concepts of love are employed.
It may or may not stand, that no amount of intelligence can successfully or permanently defy the governing Laws of the universe.I suggest that, though the forces of love can be countered for a season, all things are ultimately accountable to its Law.
Respectively, though gravity's forces can be countered for a season, everything must rejoin the sphere or it will expire.
It remains, the forces of gravity are more clearly evidenced then the forces of love.So I digress ...
The hypothetical theory of The Law of Love cannot be truly evidenced yet, apart from faith and reason.
And so it is, emotional theories are as subjective as the God of religions.Apologies for the drivel ... lol - certainly appears that way.I often say ...
The God allowed His purpose to be written down by men, so that people employing knowledge could more clearly evidence religious misconceptions regarding Him. Indeed onifre ...
Is this not a display of ego and pride on religion's behalf?
They seem to want the God to be, but they want the God to be what they say first.
It seems the purpose of religion to claim the God as their own first, and then dish out His rations proportionally to the masses.
If the God is, He must not be second ... everything else will join, not lead.I would surmise the God is not the least bit religious.Though I digress ...
I conceptualize the God as the Spirit of Love, and then place that concept of Him on an equal basis with His existence.That is, if the God is not Love, the God does not exist.lol - what a hypocrite it seems I am. Zealots are seemingly foolish to employ details of scripture in an attempt to objectively prove the existence of a being which, by their own admission, clearly does not want to be objectively evidenced.I accrue faith in the God simply by employing the reality of their inability to do so ...Edited by Bailey, : greetingEdited by Bailey, : grammar

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary

Thank you for the exchange Stile. Is this not like stating ...If people say that Dave exists, and that Dave's friends' packages are sent on time ... they are making a prediction.
Yet, easily recognized outer stimuli associated with such an assertion exists which may result certain variables.Granted, the initial 'prediction' is formed within subjectively collective, and personally objective, ideologies.
Even still, unless we study Word, we have little way of accounting for any variables that may skew such results.Yet, if little Billy 'prays' for a baseball glove, and then finds or is given one, is his prayer not answered?
And, even if processes employed by the God to distribute the gift of Love can be otherwise 'clearly evidenced'?Even if some of Billy's mates also receive a glove and did not pray to the God; but another?Who shall count to the God's credit, 1000 baseball gloves donated to Billy's school?What may we say when 100 gloves are given to the little league?
But if 10 are recieved by his cubscout troop?If One near the Two Trees? We may clearly evidence certain misconceptions about the God as well.
Could He not be double minded as some continuously make Him out to be?Any potential perceptions, and contrived evidence, of such correlations remain captive to the alloted duration of time given within said framework.What was true in the past may no longer be necessarily true at present and may not apply in the future.
This implies evidence may, or may not, appear to be in the same local continuously.
'Evidence' may remain simply reliable as the 'force of determination' seeking it.A 'convicting' exhibit of evidence may be differently evidenced than 'natural selection'.The investigator looked in the dumpster six times ...
Each time wondering, may he have missed the Truth?
Arrogance believes it won't be there the seventh ...lol - not the investigator.For this reason, science will testify what is 'true' today, may be 'false' tomorrow.
Respectively, what is 'false' yesterday, may be 'true' in the future.The exception being if one may stray from the Truth.
Even still, the exception remains only in their mind. The present opinion finds the above hypothysis circumventing reason.
The suggestion appears to provide evidence towards self evident Truth ...In what way may such assertion evidence the existence, or otherwise, of a prayer rewarding god?
If this test produces results that lack significant bias, this is evidence arbitrary claims of people are refutable.Not much more. This evidence appears to simply support arbitrary claims of people are refutable.Perhaps one is told I walk by the Tim Horton's up the street from Valero everyday on my way home from ...
If another sits at Tim Horton to witness me walk by on my way, yet does not witness me, do I not exist?Even if they arrive there and wait everyday for a year?The watcher has likely been misinformed. Do not follow.This evidence appears valid for considering people who are involved in assigning rumors and expectations.We must test the God's Words, not rumors, to validate evidence associated to Him.
His Word is available ... no need to overlay subjectivity. Correct.The evidence clearly supports that arbitrary claims of people are refutable.Regarding the God or otherwise, respectively. lol - it certainly is evidence for the non existence of human infallibility. lol - the God can take on many faces when religion is the mediator.When Love is the mediator, many seekers do not recognize the God.
These ones do not wish to serve Love, rather sadism and masochism.A double minded man is unstable in his way.One LoveEdited by Bailey, : spelling

---

Mercy Trumps Judgement,
Love Weary