zapatos

Evidence?

Your approach to what? Perhaps you could clarify for me what it is exactly that you wish to discuss.

You asked me what I thought and I told you.

Sounds like something that would be used as a discussion aid in a Bible class for children.

Sorry, but a further discussion of God needs to take place in a Religion or Philosophy thread, rather than here in Physics. Feel free to find an existing thread there or start one of your own. There are many people on this site who will be happy to join in, but be prepared as quite a few people will debate you with vigor.

For many of us, 'not knowing' is an excellent reason to not believe in something. I feel I would be being dishonest with myself by 'choosing' to believe in something that I didn't know to be true. I prefer to just admit I don't know.

Can you explain how God would 'be your Ockham's razor'? Was your God created, or did He always exist? If he always existed, then His existence describes a more complex model than a universe that has always existed, not a less complex model.

Your post is ridiculous because it uses a logical fallacy. In this case the fallacy is Guilt by Association. Your comparison of Trump to Hitler is an obvious attempt to make Trump appear evil simply because of shared attributes with Hitler. You could just as well have substituted 'The Pope' for 'Hitler' in your comparison, but it would have lessened the impact of your attack. I'm sure there are similar attributes between you and Hitler also, but it is unlikely that any valid criticism of you would benefit by such a comparison. Trump has enough faults that there is no need to try to make them appear worse than they are.

Don't give me that "please..." crap. You stated science could study the role of a creator. Dodging a very reasonable question related to that assertion is very poor form on your part showing your unwillingness to discuss this seriously. Don't bring it up if you don't want to talk about it.

An unequivocal response to whether or not you think there is, or will be, evidence of God for science to examine, would be helpful.

I read the articles you linked. It seems as if you are saying they show evidence of God. Do I have that correct?

For science to have a conversation about a creator, there must be evidence to work with. Are you suggesting there is or will be evidence of God?

Yes, we can know for certain C is wearing a black hat assuming prisoners A and B are not fools. If C is wearing a red hat, the only way A can say "I don't know" is if B has a black hat. And if A said "I don't know" while observing a red hat on C, then B will know for certain he has on a black hat and therefore won't say "I don't know". The only scenario where both A and B 'don't know' involves C wearing a black hat (for example if all three wore black hats). I think my original logic falls down by not originally accounting for the additional information gathered once the game started.

Perhaps dyslexia. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3480257/What-s-REALLY-like-read-dyslexia-Simulator-reveals-letters-words-appear-people-condition.html

Mix the contents of the cans.

Perhaps you are thinking of OPERA? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_anomaly

Peter BE Cimp, a good Christain, said that. I just thought it was so telling that I quoted him. If you have a problem with it please take it up with him. Again, not a quote from me. It's a quote from a Monty Python movie. You know who to talk to if you don't like it. Perhaps they'd be willing to change their movie so you are not offended. Here's another movie quote for you:

Nursing some hurt feelings?

Of course, that isn't what I said, is it? What is amusing is your inability to actually read what I write (you are now two for two). Here, I'll copy it below as you seem to having trouble reading my posts the first time around. "The only thing the blind guys knows for certain is that both he and one other person are not wearing red hats" Perhaps you'd benefit from Googling 'conjunctions'. Did you come to this site because you ran out of local people to be rude to?

Agreed. The only thing the blind guys knows for certain is that both he and one other person are not wearing red hats, otherwise one of the first two would have known that they wore a black hat. Therefore it is possible that both of the first two prisoners are wearing black (in which case a black hat would remain) or that one is wearing black and one is wearing red (in which case a red hat would remain). Hence, the blind guy doesn't know with certainty the color of his hat.

How interesting that you didn't read the post immediately following Airbrush's comparison of Trump to Hitler, where I criticized Airbrush for making such a ridiculous comparison. Your post is as ridiculous as that of Airbrush. People who live in glass houses...

I guess you missed the title of this thread. I'll list it below so you'll know. "The Impeachment of Trump?"

You are just a ray of sunshine.

Tell me what you'd like to see there and I'll edit my post.

Right, I'm the one who said knowledge implies understanding in my first post. Yes, I acknowledged that and said that your idea of overlap was probably a better description than my description that knowledge implies understanding. Guess I didn't make myself clear.