My analogy was meant to show what I believe the motive is for ICANT even arguing. His aim is not to reinvent science. His aim is to convince you that God is the one exception to the rule that there is no absolute truth.

Which extrapolates into: "Unless there is evidence pointing to a cause-effect relationship between GOD and_________, we cannot conclude that God exists or is effective." You will never convince the old man of that!

I wouldn't waste a word trying to convince him that water is wet.

Is the fact that water is wet an absolute truth?

I am concurring that God is the only necessary absolute truth.

What there is no evidence for, none at all, is the speculation that some god popped the universe into existence or had anything at all to do with anything in this universe. There is no reason, even vanishingly small, to entertain the notion. No level of confidence need be assessed. It does not enter the picture in anyway. If some evidence is found, and verified, this may change. Until then, god is out.

you could be hallucinating your sobriety.

don't be an idiot, obviously from the context of his writing he meant two of Earth's moon.

The scientific method since it was first defined as a methodical way to study and understand things has been a highly successful way to gain knowledge.

Was this a question or a statement? I never waste resources.

There are enough resources to do science and solve human issues. You guys aren't successfully doing either one.

And most of that knowledge has had to be discarded because no one was looking for the truth.

There has been billions wasted because what was promoted as real science had to be discarded as junk science.

Not when we are 21 trillion dollars in debt. If the other world goverments decided to set up their own monetery system and dump the dollar as the world currency we would be bankrupt. Because they would not have to use dollars to do business with each other. That would mean we could not print dollars to do business with them.