You can't really disprove or prove God completely,

This type of statement implies a very ignorant understanding of the Burden Of Proof principle.

There was proof for God, so you as a atheist try to give answers to that.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here.

Please tell me you are just "trolling" Srom with this comment. Because if it's sincere, it's a very stupid reason not to believe something.

-You buy a lotto ticket that is played nation-wide.

--You win.

---Did God make you win?

..

..

-You are told to pick a number between one and one million.

--You guess the number right on the first try.

---Did God tell you what the number was?

..

..

-You need to paint a pineapple with your teeth....blindfolded.

--You end up painting a very detailed pineapple.

---Did God make you do that?

..

..

-You tell a friend to pick any card out of a mega-deck combined of 20 decks and NOT to reveal their card to anyone. Then have them place it back and shuffle the whole deck while you're not in the room.

--You come back in the room and on the first try you pick out their card they chose.

---Did God tell you which card it was?

Do I need to go on... or are you understanding the faulty logic that your example and mine all seem to have in common?

In my opinion all atheism will go to hell when they die as they never believe in Jesus our mighty saviour. I advise all atheism all people to start believing as death is like a blind hand. It will sweep you away without realising it.

Someone can say this about any religion. Why should I believe Jesus is real over Krishna?

If the eternal being is an exception to the rule, why assume what is eternal is a being that created everything? Where does the description of a sentient being become a logical conclusion based off of the First Law of Thermodynamics?

But it must include a cheesy joke on the back of the tombstone.

Except there is no doctrine for atheism. So it wouldn't work.

I think that's true for nearly any subject.

It also reminds me of the quote: "The more you know, the less you know."

I don't know how to answer this question/debate.

I could see "immature notions" taken in so many ways. Could you clarify please?

Please don't think that I am in any way trying to discredit "the scientific method"....but are you are saying that the conclusions we come to by utilizing the scientific method are not fundamentally dependent on our judgments and perceptive ability?ou do realize hat we are always working with incomplete data sets, and none of our controls are without flaw, right?

No. I am saying the facts that the scientific method demonstrates are not dependent upon humans being there to acknowledge it. Those facts exist without our judgment saying they do. The scientific method helps us remove most, if not all, of that obstacle of only being true by human acknowledgment. It's designed to check our judgment and to depend on the universes laws. Our conclusions may be subjective or flawed, but the facts aren't.

As I see it, we may mitigate, but we cannot escape that all of our judgments are subjective when it comes down to it.

Not all, some of them are tested by a method dependent on outside/universal laws.

I don't see faith as "belief without evidence" I think of it more like not being paralyzed by the realization that not all evidence has been taken into account. I have great faith in the scientific method but I realize that it is a set of improvable standards.

Faith is not dependent on the evidence. If you have a belief based on faith, whether objective evidence supports your belief or is lacking in supporting your belief, you still believe in it.

It's a belief held, just because. No logic. Science is the very opposite of that. Everything is based on some type of evidence and if there isn't then that belief is not held.

I apologize for my lack of clarity. I didn't know how to word my argument so that it covered all doubts I could think of.

I'm going to try it again...

The Scientific Method (the process I was describing) helps prove things objectively, so that it's validity is not dependent on us being there to point it out (human recognition/ acknowledgment). Because of this, we can test our reason as well.

It works because we've tested our ability to think logically. We've developed a method that--while is still observed by humans who are using reason--removes much of the dependence of human recognition.

But to have faith in reason to me sounds counter-intuitive.