Belief in God is scientific.

The issue really, Mike, is to do with objective logical notation VERSUS the assumption-driven Philosophy of Methodological Naturalism.Secular, Materialist, mainstream science, is not strictly objective, because it must proceed in giving a worldview that is consistently naturalistic. If there is evidence for God, that does not fit with the theories that expound a natural beginning and unfolding of the universe, so that evidence will always be viewed as paradoxical. The rules of science therefore allow only natural explanations based on the tautology that a natural universe will give natural explanations.Unfortunately, while the God-of-the-gaps is sound, it is not sound to state the opposite, which is that God can't ever be inferred.If science will not allow God to be inferred, yet He is true, then logically science is GUARANTEED to come to wrong conclusions, and wrong/false theories.LOGICALLY, secular science is inherently none-objective. It must be by definition, otherwise there would be no such thing as methodological naturalism. It must be biased, in this regard, as science is the art of natural explanations.Logically, it has to be biased towards naturalism. Therefore that there is no scientific evidence of God, is the same as saying; "there is nothing physically demanding in being lazy".That conclusion is tautologous, if science can't infer God, then there can't be "scientific" evidence of God, as it would be like saying;"we can't include cakes in our cooking school, so here is a question, --is there any cakes in our cooking school?--"Doesn't take Einstein to give the answer does it mike? There are no cakes, because they are not allowed, but does that mean cakes are not valid?Does it mean God is not valid? No - because if there is evidence for God, it is still there, it is just not classed as "science". A nifty trick really, because if evidence is not "scientific" they know that nobody will consider it, even if it is brilliant and true.Therefore I politely request you read my following blog entry, and I promise the evolutionists, I am not saying there is secular-science evidence for God, as that is not possible, as you have made it that way. So do not be angry, I am not claiming to know anything secular-scientific.Creation and evolution views: Plenty of evidence for God's existenceEdited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You're using the term, "fact" as an epithet, stated, ad nasueum. I've highlighted the propaganda/rhetoric. It is used as a superfluous, extraneous input.By stating this strongly, notice you don't have to support your statement with any actual argument/. Stating the same thing, incessantly, will not make it either more true or more false, (google, "ad nasuseum")It should also be pointed out that there are people with an education, critical thinking skills and honesty, that are creationist, understand evolution and do not accept it as, "fact". You can find a number of them at Creation.com, I can think of a few PHDs off hand, such as Jonathan Sarfati, David CatchPoole, et al, all whom are much more qualified than Jar the evolutionist is, and they also do not seem to engage in these fallacies. So it is a non sequitur that you will be evolutionist if you have these attributes, as exampled by the real-life examples acting as my absurdum.As Zod says, Jar, "you cannot bargain with what you do not have.""We have all these things aready, without you." (Superman 2.)We can have all of those skills and knowledges AND reject evolution, and we do, in real life.I believe I have shown ample critical thinking skills in this post, WITHOUT being evolutionist. Now if there was something, some syllogism, with some sort of premises, form and genuine inference, either tollens or ponen, then submit it.No offense to you, but you can imagine how infuriating your post is, when you happen to know you have all those things, and yet you are not evolutionist and yet you seem to be telling me I am evolutionist when I know I am not.To be evolutionist, you need to have been taught by evolutionists, that's all, and you need credulity when it comes to believing men's limited induction tallies, are wiser than the God that created the universe.So basically, you just need to be able to jump to grandiose conclusions, based on folly, against the weight of the reality of the creation.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.