Thanks for the encouragement.

There's a lot of writing to be done, and time and logistics are a factor involved. But God's been gracious so far with letting me put out these insights so I will continue to churn them out as he sees fit.

It's not a fallacy to want to proceed slowly and deal with foundations first before getting to the complexities. But the link I provided shows the whole chain to the essential deep claims for those who jump ahead.

The first foundation is the argument for the Cosmos being a greatest thing, which is fundamental to how Christians describe God (technically the Christian panentheist route). Then we discern the Cosmos contains all reality, activity, order, life, etc. If you want to divert to a specific feature of "God", go ahead; but we've resolved the point you raised, showing that the Greatest Thing is not "supernatural" according to the totality of known and unknown laws of nature. Great atheist James Randi proved this, saying: if a so-called "miracle" or "magic" occurs in scientific testing, it isn't truly supernatural but something about which newly known laws can be proposed.

The fact that a "most convincing" argument against deity must exist does not prove that argument is valid: I understood "convincing" in the sense of indeterminate probabilism. If I had said valid arguments for and against deity both exist, that would be invalid and false. The student of truth listens reasonably to all arguments for and against deity before selecting tentative or firmer conclusions. One argument eventually overpowers another by preponderance of evidence, and disagreements get resolved.

TLDR: The Cosmos contains all power and thought and life. Do you acknowledge, with great atheist Carl Sagan, that it exists and contains all that was, is, or will be? Would you decline to answer that question in colloquy with that fellow atheist? The rest is just refining evidence about this greatest thing, which we can get to as soon as we agree on the foundation.

Accepting death by the hands of others doesn't quite trigger the "will over respiration" achievement...

Spirit, into your (All) hands.

Temporal within ongoing passing through one another aka sprouting/germination/offspring...

Which self is first (original)?

What comes out of the process of dying? Each living one coming to be within. All perceivable implies "input" coming out of process of dying; each ones perception implies living within.

Then, process of dying, (towards) to death, forever and ever back.

"seek an you shall find" .... Living implies resisting the process of dying .... Loss generates growth ; growth re-generates during loss .... Only growth experiences loss .... one being will .... Utilizing guide to grow life

Then, forever and ever back.

Form resisting dominating flow by free will of choice.

Responsible.

If loss of form is partial, then WHOLE could grow...which contradicts whole.

Reality: Form within flow (parts) represent whole. Loss acts/subtracts (to flow) and growth reacts/adds (from flow) upon parts within whole (all).

Each temporary one dies within ever forwarding all.

If each temporary one within, then each one contemporary (con-tempo): forever and ever back. Suggesting each one dies ignores spirit returning (turning fro and back). Forever and ever back implies multiplying tempo both forward and back (within ongoing by division between forward and back).

Just because perceivable implies dying, doesn't mean that ones living perception has to ignore itself for it.

Then, dying implies living: discerning self ....

Temporal matter forwards and back (choice) within momentum (balance) of ongoing motion.

I'm glad you have a good grasp of logical fallacy, so we can speak more briefly.

1. I didn't specify the measurement standard, but by my reference to Democritus extent in spacetime is sufficient.

2. Science operates by reasonable inference from observation. We don't need to measure everything to know the Universe (or Cosmos, says great atheist Sagan) is the most extensive thing in spacetime.

3. I wasn't arguing for omniscient or omnipotent (yet), nor did I argue that the most gold means nothing but gold.

4. The most convincing argument that gods are fake is in a different class from the most convincing argument that some god is real, so we need to compare the two classes.

Now, given that, we can measure other aspects of this Cosmos. Since Sagan defines it to be all that ever was, is, or will be, by that definition it comprises all else, including all action (power) and all encoded information (knowledge). There is no power or knowledge held by any part of the universe that is not also held by the universe itself, as Adler would proceed to demonstrate. Is that clear?

Where is the testable proposition that confirms Christianity?

Christianity makes many propositions. Mortimer Adler indicated a good proposition to start with is that "one thing in existence is measurably the greatest". This is shared by both Christianity and many other positive systems, but is rejected by nihilistic systems. If you agree with that proposition, then we can exclude the nihilistic class and proceed to narrowing the positive class, by investigate what this "greatest thing" consists of. It seems that every test and corollary has demonstrated that things are measurable and thus one thing is the greatest.

If instead you want to jump ahead, it would be more proper for you to express a proposition that disconfirms Christianity. You may have tried this direct route already, but I've answered in place and we may need to continue to engage that. I admit the Bible is my source, but if you want to investigate the truth claims it needs to be done without the informal logical fallacy (well-poisoning) of declaring it stupid without testing the evidence. You may, for instance, object to "miracle" as being "supernatural", but Christians believe all events follow laws and so they realize (C. S. Lewis, Miracles) that we only call it "magic" until we understand the laws at work. If you were previously exposed to Christians who officiously refused to investigate topics labeled "miracle", that's not the only kind of Christian there is. (Per your first question, they and I would be happy to dialogue toward agreement in one spirit.)

You are claiming to know the answer though... GAWD did it.... That's the answer... That's where the universe came from.

I claim to know enough answer to put it into words and to indicate the part of the answer I don't know. Every origin theory does the same. I was reading an eminently reasonable black-hole paper where it's properly indicated that we can't know anything about black holes by direct observation; but what we do know is that black hole theory is the simplest explanation and anything else would require greater complexity and have less probative power. All scientific progress depends on finding, not the perfect theory of everything, but the theory with greatest explanatory power. If my theory happens to encapsulate everything under the name "God", and a different one does so under the name "many worlds hypothesis" or "strong anthropic principle", there is no prima facie reason to prefer one over the other.

By objecting, you imply you're claiming to know definitively it wasn't this "God". Your evidence for that implication is not forthcoming. But I'm very thankful to you that you keep trying.

Ever forwards implies ongoing motion...being implies temporal matter .... That implies transformation of partials within whole aka chemistry of all (alchemy) .... transformation implies a flowing process aka male (motion) through female (momentum) transformation (matter) ... form struggles to sustain self within flow by resisting temptation

Responsible.

origin (God)

Origin implies an outpouring from, God implies a label upon...held within

Then, Origin.

Can you show an example where ones denial of breathing let to ones death?

Jesus Christ.

Without differentiation through female (momentum) into trans-form (matter)...male (motion) couldn't be discerned by each different self as same origin. Differences identifying (equalizing; making same) each other implies self denial aka lack of self discernment...out of which one labels all with identities. Self implies perpetuation of one through intercourse with another one into off-spring...a setting apart by giving away. Not something to hold onto and identify with. It's ones claim of possession as "me; myself or I" which corrupts ones line of thought and thereby ones line of perpetuation through another. In short: all doesn't require self, since there's no other "all"...one requires self, since there are other ones within all to perpetuate self.

Then, All shows All (Him). What is "each different self"?

Does an outcome respond (re) to presented origin? What if a response (choice) can only operate in-between origin and outcome, hence from within a balance?

Then, how could one perceive death coming out?

If there's only needed origin, then why would one require a choice to balance within wanted outcomes? Where's temptation without outcomes to tempt choice to fall for? Does living represent (respond to presented) process of dying?

Who requires or wants? Does resistance process life?

So that there can be growth (partial ones) during loss (whole oneness)...an internal balance of external energy.

Does each one cease? Then, all would be lost.

chasing after death

What else?

Dying (loss/action) implies living (growth; reaction)...a simultaneous process of differentiation (matter) within origin (motion)

Then, the dying process represents transformation. How could a dying outcome represent or perceptibly come out?

Few suggest freedom (free and dom put together) to distract many from the ongoing differentiation of dominance (balance) into free (choice), and more importantly each ones discernment of self as wielding FREE will of choice.

Then, flow and resist, free and dominated.

form to flow transformation (life to death)

death makes each partial whole again

What if loss of form is partial? One could die forever.

to inspire adaptation. You may call this Gods' breath of life

"you may call" contradicts inspiring adaption to God's breath of life, because it tempts ones consent to another one .... A "call" shapes suggested information, which tempts others to ignore perceivable inspiration.

Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing"

The issue is "thinking", hence revolving suggested information within ones consenting mind/memory.

Not death (noun)...

Getting "not" out of the vocabulary could help tremendously to prevent spell-craft to flourish, yet who is gonna give up denial?

dying (adjective), which implies to live (verb). b) One struggles/resists/suffers origin

Perceptive. Dying forever and ever ....

Ever forwards (for ever) generates odd adaptations, hence adapting "backwards" to incoming origin. If one moves ever forwards, then what would one react to?

Then, for ever, and ever (back).

I see my comment at https://scored.co/c/Conspiracies/p/1994owaTre/oof-salty-loser-spamming-is-not-/c/4ZDugTT19UX had its link helpfully broken by the platform when it intended to point to https://communities.win/c/Atheist/p/141reluACp/-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-one-m/c/4OUfR2Rkd1Q which starts with:

1. If nothing exists, nothing can be proven (Provine).

2. Things exist (Descartes).

3. Things are measurable (Democritus).

4. A greatest thing can be detected, defined according to its measurability (Adler).

Is it testable to you, via observation of things, that something that exists is measurably the greatest?

I don't cite the Bible as a source to you when you don't accept it; rather, I pointed out (also in that link) that when you pursue truth you naturally consider all the candidates and in this the Bible commends itself. Comparing it to other theories of everything, all of which have untestable claims and unknown laws of nature and alleged contradictions, it excels. But for you to see that you'd need to start with the basics such as whether some greatest thing exists.

If something is beyond our ability to know it, then there is no process by which that information can end up in a book without being completely made up.

Correct! A book can only be a communication about the unknown or unknowable, not the thing itself. Now we're making progress. Do you recognize that the universe contains the unknown and/or unknowable? Does this give you any pause when you criticize others for saying so? If you only criticize me for saying I know something, well, we can test the things I think I know, one proposition at a time (above).

Ask your confessor whether "Geez" and other immoderate language is venial or mortal, as it depends on circumstances.

If you don't want to listen to those four groups all agreeing that Catholic and Orthodox are the mainstream Christian church, and JWs and Mormons regard only themselves as real Christians, that's fine. But if you can't tell the difference between the Catholic-Orthodox history and the 19th-century origin of the JWs and Mormons who believe there was no church between the 1st century and themselves, that's a bit of studious ignorance. The tests I gave in my first answer suffice to demonstrate that the Catholic-Orthodox-Protestant unity has significant truth and the cults don't.

You haven't cited any Christian statement that contradicts me. You seem to be judging just on my offhand comment that God is a Law unto Himself as well as a Person.

But if none of us are true, how do you know anything? The argument still applies: the proposition "only testable propositions are knowable" is untestable, so if true it's unknowable and nothing can be known.

I linked you 50 propositions that can be tested and falsified, you haven't admitted seeing I did. Scroll back. When investigating all the major truth claims people make, including atheists, I realized that the core truths have always been accessed by humanity in a sufficient form, and so I found them in texts both ancient and modern. It's not necessary for me to defend the Bible as "inspired" when I merely ask that people start from a foundation of recognizing how truth claims are made.

TLDR: You still have no answer how you know truth: you've affirmed as your core a proposition that defeats itself. The scientific method would work better: affirm reality exists as the core, and that propositions merely reflect it, better or worse. Don't dismiss propositions you believe untestable, test those propositions that you can and more will arise. If you believe a body of laws exists, but it is beyond our current knowing them completely, that would be a much better core because it admits that reality is always greater than our model of it.

No, we have a pretty solid agreement at c/Christianity that's never varied, that Christianity is defined by the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, which reflect the core teachings of Scripture. I just indicated that there is vast agreement on this core and that disagreements from it weed themselves out naturally, and Scored has proven that for four years. I believe in theology just fine, but why would I present theology to an atheist who doesn't believe in it?

At least thank you for agreeing that the Big Bang Theory is equally unscientific because untestable. Of course, once again, your theory that only testable propositions are true is also untestable. That's why I encourage you to work on that first. Sooner or later you get to realize that all the truth you seek is a reflection in your mind of the truth of reality, and thus truth is external and can be pursued and apprehended, and this is done by accepting it as axiomatic rather than deriving it from other, unrealized, imagined axioms.

What is Christianity? I had a feeling you'd start telling me what Christianity is as if that's been experimentally tested, so you didn't let me down. If you want to make up your own rules by which you judge me, it's only natural that you accuse me of doing the same. That's why I emphasized you start with pursuing truth. Truth pursuers recognize how to distinguish and qualify propositions like "I believe Christianity teaches X due to evidence Y" and "These two propositions look contradictory to me but the evidence that billions believe them should also be considered".

Personal/impersonal: Yes, God is also a Person, while at the same time he is expressed in impersonal terms such as Law and Light and Love. Christians do believe God is a "Law unto Himself" (autonomous). Any part of this law can become known, which is what we call laws of nature.

Question 1 again: Now if you find certain complex propositions stupid ("magic man"), I encourage you to go back to simple propositions as the best path for learning how not to judge the complex ones rashly. Perhaps you don't believe the Big Bang Theory in its supernatural first instant? Either BBT is supernatural and "fairytale" and "stupid" just like special creation, or (more likely) there are epistemological evidentiary criteria to judge the best explanation.

Interpretation: Yes, my first answer, when applied, shows that e.g. leftist interpretation belies itself as separated from the common-sense Constitution. Now we just need to agree how to interpret evidence by common sense ....

Direct question: Which frame of reference do you want? The one where everything follows partly-unknown laws of nature and thus no theory of reality is supernatural? Or the one where no theory follows all known laws of nature and thus every theory of reality is supernatural? Pick one.

Thanks for the kind words.

Wow, I take back what I said, Neo! u/CrusaderPepe spammed you this time a lot worse than he ever spammed me.

He posted three full meaty articles all supposing that "Catholicism is true", but since I proved at length last month that by "Catholicism" he means whatever he says (instead of saying it means only what Catholic magisterium teaches without his additional interpretation), this is misleading. The Roman Catholic Church can be the "primary" "true church" without all the implications he adds to it. If he only asked Protestants to agree the RCC is the primary true church, he'd get more takers, but he asks for more than that.

1. He insists Protestantism has four main errors: Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, denial of Real Presence, and belittling Mary. I answered Scripture and faith are alone in one sense and not in another, and it's not useful to insist that different eucharist or hyperdulia practices. Rather than dialogue or seek to understand, he insisted there was no other way of understanding it than his article. He ignored my 18 proofs that the RCC has taught "sola fide", for instance.

2. He insists that the RCC having the bishop of Rome proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit that Rome is the primary church region without admitting papal supremacy. Having the bishop of Rome doesn't necessarily mean that the bishop can't be wrong; in 1965 he admitted that his predecessor was wrong (in 1054) to effectively excommunicate billions of Orthodox Christians. So having Rome is not a proof that other churches are in error or that the pope is supreme or infallible or any such intended corollary.

3. He insists that the RCC having the Real Presence doctrine proves Catholicism is true (meaning exactly as he teaches it), without realizing that there is no problem for Protestants or Orthodox to admit there are several isomorphic ways to talk about Real Presence and they do not conflict. I simplify this by joking that the wafer becomes my body and my body is Christ's body, so I only differ with the RCC by a few minutes. So having a Real Presence doctrine is not a proof that other churches are in error or that consubstantiation or symbolic presence is false or any such intended corollary.

So, Neo, the problems are (1) Catholics like this routinely defend both the true believers who represent some part of Catholicism (somewhere between 0% and 100%), and all the folk errors they add to magisterium that they don't realize, making it hard to respond to such a defense levelly or usefully; and (2) Catholics like this compound the error by showing astonishing self-unawareness, which might arise from constantly sitting in judgment on all things and then judging it's more righteous to "speak one's peace" for many myriads of words than to just be personable and able to interact with others winsomely. If you want to pick on his "defense", I'd suggest starting with my link above where I list 18 times the Catholic magisterium, including its popes and Bibles, has taught Sola Fide; that might get his interest the fastest. Maybe I'll post it to c/catholic too.

God does not supersede the laws of nature and reality, as I just implied. God is defined as being one with the laws of nature and reality. If you believe in the laws of nature and reality, welcome.

I'm seeking to address. You may have something more specific in mind to ask.

Yes, God, like all proposed origins, is bound by all natural laws known or unknown. Who says we "can't" know any natural law? Science says we can. Science says natural laws are real (gravity), even though "law" represents an external concept.

Some questions presuppose contradictions. A "God" that "breaks rules" is a contradiction, since God is defined as not breaking rules but making them, so the question does not refer to reality and does not propose a testable (falsifiable) theory.

There is no attempt not to address issues, but that's enough answer for your brevity standards, and more can be forthcoming.

Endless implies conclusion (end) through loss (less).

Then, (say) forever.

That's the foundation for suggested creationism aka everything out of nothing

What of creation out of All?

Whole cannot withhold anything from partials...partials imply the revelation of whole.

So rocks affirm being. Do humans?

af-FIRM-ing implies the choice of form after coming into being.

Then, firming. Forms firm.

Does "or not" apply to origin (God)?

Call origin God. "Or not" applies to rocks, which affirm being by being.

Try to denial the flow of breathing

Sustained denial of breathing represents death. Breathing forever represents life.

If all implies God, then IT blasphemes HE

Yes; then, All identifies Himself.

only now can one perceive.

Yes.

death on itself implies a point within procession

Does death represent One ceasing (ending) or One becoming All (forever)? Why would one cease?

What do you think about this...

Distinctions distinguish. What do you think about this?

Origin (God)...redundancy; otherwise, superfluity? Or were those shaped by a choice in ignorance of origin? How could whole offer redundancy to partials within? How could origin offer otherwise? How could a flowing origin forming beings offer superfluity aka super flow aka beyond flow?

Then (with that origin), redundancy (redounding).

ignoring life sentence

Then, does dying represent ceasing or becoming?

"free to flow" inverts flow towards formed being

Then, flow in freedom, and resist in freedom.

How could one "has/have" inception, when ones life has passed through it?

Then, One passed through (from) inception. Can One pass through or to death?

Suggesting what IS tempts

Then, you may call inspiring adaptation God's breath of life.

Do I make a case when using implication (if/then)? What do I cover by using flow to implicate? Reason on the other hands confines both sides within a conflict...does implication (if/then) do the same or does it set inspiration towards free will of choice?

Then, implication inspires (All implies balance).

struggling from inception

Does struggle or resistance or suffering or being imply death? Now, do the few suggest death?

IF nothing, THEN...what could follow? .... One could write a sophisticated treatise about the abolishment of nothing

Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing"

Then, "not" in the vocabulary implies choosing nothing.

If one adapts to having nothing, then...?

Then, One adapts forever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQnaRtNMGMI

Suggestion met resistance.

We aka suggested pluralism

Then, One wills and sounds and chooses.

consenting to a suggested tenet implies holding onto aka contracting

Then, call it an inspiration.

Only within balance can choice oscillate backwards and forwards aka balancing.

Yes.

RE implies temporary

Then, spiration, backward and forward, temporary forever.

supernatural is something that is not bound by the laws of nature

Oh, I'm fine talking about that. Do you mean the laws of nature as understood in the present, the past, or the future? Our understanding keeps changing, which is why the definition of "supernatural" changes with time.

Question 1 is asking you whether you recognize that all cosmological theories contain the supernatural as you define it. For instance, Big Bang Theory is not bound by the (known) laws of nature for its first Planck instant, I thought you knew that. OTOH you might argue that BBT is indeed bound by the (unknown, knowable) laws of nature but we don't know how yet. Since all theories have something existing beyond (known) laws of nature, it's irrelevant which something we choose, unless and until we have more (observational) evidence to bear on the question. So:

DIRECT ANSWER

No, the Christian God, like any other proposed origin, is not bound by the totality of the laws of nature as we know them (because new laws can be discovered); yes, the Christian God is, like any other proposed origin, bound by any particular law of nature as it can be known (because known laws are trustworthy in their scopes). Your frame of reference (unknown or known law) determines which answer applies.

Question 2: If you didn't like my first answer as to how disagreements are resolved, e.g. because you don't think I gave enough credit to the (temporary) condition where disagreements stand for a long time, you could have been more specific. You apparently didn't like the part of my answer about Catholics (Christians) and Mormons and JWs (not) either, if you read it. When you start with indirect questions you get indirect answers.

(Checking on you from our other conversation:) I have that on DVD somewhere! So glad that others remember that spring 2001 broadcast. What do you think of Hal on that point? Prophet, or just well-informed? Funny where he takes his information.

You ask a lot of questions. I often include TLDR summaries. In this case the last paragraph was the summary but I didn't flag it as such.

1. Do you understand "that all scientific theory and progress in history involves a recognition that certain phenomena remain unexplained, and that this recognition is likely to continue even as more is explained"? That was accompanied by my giving Stephen Hawking's relatively atheistic position.

2. What do you wish to gain from a conversation where you ask questions but demur at the answers? Asking for a friend. Without my being snarky about it, that doesn't strike me as the most edifying conversational norm.

If we are to have a conversation, it would be fruitful to move it to c/Atheist, but I don't know what proposition(s) you'd want to work from.

(u/Neo1, note I answer this in its own language.)

inception towards death

Evidence indicates not all flow is towards death (endless flow).

How could a BEING fail to BE anything?

To make firm that one is a being is indeed to be something.

affirm vs. denial

To deny that one is a being is not to be something.

being comes before choice

Being affirms its being automatically without reference to free will of choice.

Affirmation and denial tempts ones choice to select the suggested choices of another

To flow with All is to affirm All without reference to whether One has free will of choice or not.

Who is calling one a liar if one doesn't affirm truth to another?

If one fails to affirm, when it is one's duty to flow with All, the lack of resonance with All identifies itself as the lie.

pre-sent (before being send) implies the sleight of hand one ignores

Then, say, life flows in the now.

What about "never" aka nothing ever? Can that be experienced?

Correct, Nothing and Never are not life or experience, which is why death is not life or experience but itself a suggestion.

Why is nothing used as the foundation to deny (de-nihilo) an end of being?

Life and experience do not involve or evidence any end of being.

Why did you put a THE before ALL? An adjective before ALL; before everything?

If "The" means "All", redundancy; otherwise, superfluity.

separation (momentum) of whole (motion) into partials (matter) establishes beginning and end

End and death are not stablished or firm or life.

To follow implies the path of least resistance aka the temptation to go with the velocity towards death instead of resisting for the sustenance of life by adapting to the origin of inception.

Then, say, One is free to flow with (adapt to) All, to resist temptation.

Need (inception towards death) generates want (life)

Because is the suggested inversion of cause

Then, say, One has inception, and One does not end.

If one asks nature "why", then nature doesn't answer "because"...it simply moves cause towards being to inspire adaptation. You may call this Gods' breath of life

Yes, inspiring adaptation is God's breath of life.

a) Which one made the choice that suggested meaning changes origin (God)?

In this case, me. Each One is free to choose.

b) What if origin (all) offers choice (one), while choosing (ones choice) to shirk it onto another (chosen one) implies heresy?

In that case, you. If unshirking choice is no heresy, well.

What if many choose to ignore origin (perceivable balance) for each other (suggested choices), which establishes a chosen few in control over many followers?

Ignoring origin represents imbalance.

Consenting to suggested choices tempts back together aka e pluribus unum (out of many; one) or tikkun olam (healing the world by bringing together) aka abrahamism (father of multitude) etc.

Then, say, choosing All suffices.

What if the origin of not implies suggested nihil-ism (Latin nihilo; nothing) which tempts one to consent to de-nial perceivable for suggested? Thinking that one can "not choose" implies ones choice to consent to "nothing".

Then, say, "not" implies choosing nothing, which is a heresy (a shirking of responsibility).

What if even (balance) forces odds (choice) to adapt?

Then, say, adapt. Adapt to One having no end.

How could choice be affixed (defined), when choosing implies reaction to balance?

Then, say, we will and sound out and choose. It's a tenet.

nothing tempts one at odds with even

Even and odds alternate and oscillate in life: endless respiration.

Roman Catholics admit that there are "separated brethren" among the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, who for their part admit that there are brothers among the Roman Catholics. That's following the same Jesus.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons frankly admit they follow a different Jesus and regard themselves as separate from the mainstream denominations, who for their part regard them as cultists. JWs believe in a created Jesus, while Mormons believe in a deified Jesus separate from the Father. Christianity teaches instead that the man Jesus is also God and one with the Father. But to discuss these propositions is fruitless while one does not have a good working definition of god or man, or of epistemology of historic investigation.

I didn't refuse to verify anything, I began by verifying core principles of seeking truth, and, since you haven't built on those core principles by admitting that the pursuit of truth has a goal of leading somewhere, there hasn't been reason to build with you. I only answer your questions because it's a habit of mine. You may have me confused with someone who is anxious to tell you a view of truth for self-validation purposes. If you are interested in the core elements for the purpose of finding agreement rather than for the purpose of criticizing details, we could proceed; but first it's probably better to agree that we are indeed both pursuing an absolute truth outside ourselves by the process you describe of experimentation and testing.

Yes, unfalsifiable claims can be dismissed. (For instance, the many universes principle can be dismissed because it postulates that many universes exist similar to our own but that cannot be detected in any verifiable way; that's unfalsifiable because there is no measurable difference between the presence and the absence of many undetectable universes.) That fact is why I linked you to falsifiable claims, i.e. those that can be validated or invalidated by scientific or historical principles.

Yes, my desire is insufficient to prove that I do know, or get to know, even a small set of facts of the nature of the universe. That is why I pursue truth, so as to keep apprehending more of it. The scientific method assumes that the pursuit of truth does generally lead to apprehending more of it, and that's all I ask from atheists who use it.

Now, you think I'm putting forward "a sentient magic supernatural being who created the universe for fun". But I said nothing about those details here, nor do my links indicate the details you state. Analytically, (1) I explained that supernatural, same as magic, refers merely to the inexplicable. When man doesn't know how something happens scientifically, it's still supernatural; when man finds out how, it's not anymore. Man doesn't know how lightspeed variance or symmetry breaking works in the scientific origin models, so they remain in the realm of supernatural, much as science doesn't own that word (it's not me shirking the word). Science is fine with saying unexplained, though, for the aspects of the various origin theories that defy the known laws of physics. The whole quest, after all, is for new laws that transcend the current laws and explain these yet-unexplained phenomena; that was Hawking's method. (2) We can get to discussing sentience once we know what it is in ourselves and how to recognize it outside ourselves; that comes later in the logical discussion than absolute truth does. (3) "Fun" is a rather odd assumption from what I said and not in my links at all; but generically it refers to whether the universe is purposeful or not, which like sentience requires first the recognition of what purpose is and how to recognize it.

Therefore what I'm putting forward to start with is merely what all science admits: nobody knows all the laws of the universe, or the theory of everything, and every explanation and model contains portions that are unexplained. The Standard Model of physics has not resolved quantum gravity; the Big Bang theory has not resolved the first Planck instant; these admittedly unsolved, open problems defy all known laws and so it's entirely proper to call them "supernatural", meaning unexplained by known law. (Science of course presumes they can be explained by unknown law, but so do I. Definitionally, though, we speak either in the frame where some things are unexplained, or in the frame where some explanations are unknown; we don't get to waffle.) The unexplained in all these theories "supersedes" (transcends) known law, and honest atheists admit that.

If you're willing to suspend what you think I'm putting forward, and to stick to what is a reasonable inference from observation as you claim, we can investigate the starter proposition: namely, that all scientific theory and progress in history involves a recognition that certain phenomena remain unexplained, and that this recognition is likely to continue even as more is explained. Even Hawking admitted that achieving a theory of everything would still only mean that a few could describe the current unexplained phenomena sufficiently that the theory's broad outlines could be grasped by the many, and thus recognized that the achievement would only answer questions by exposing mankind to new questions, just as scientific progress has always done.

Most all the 50,000 denominations agree on the essentials of following Jesus, and admit each other to be true followers. Most all the disagreements are about nonessentials (and politics), not about truth. The occasional exceptions are usually easily distinguished because of several marks of disunity with the core at the same time: that is, a so-called "denomination", that really does reject all others, that refuses other truth teachers than its selected leader, and that usually doesn't go Bible only, is easily recognized as a cult instead of as a denomination.

I just linked you demonstrated ways to verify knowledge of truth about these things. Most all denominations agree broadly with such elements in verifying such knowledge. Nobody professes absolute belief as if we are capable of doing anything absolutely; people profess that absolute truth exists and we can approximate it and apprehend it better over time. Logically, if you believe there is no absolute truth, there's no absolute standard by which your relative belief can be tested or held right or wrong; no belief would be better than any other. Rather, most atheists are just practical agnostics, they do have some things they believe to be more in harmony with some external standard than other things.

You did fall into a trap by changing my definition from "unexplained" to "supernatural". When you investigate what people mean by "supernatural" they always go back to "unexplained". Now let's make that a real test case. There are over a dozen scientific (usually atheistic) theories of the origin of the universe. Every one of them necessarily appeals to the unexplained somewhere or other. Further, most of them contradict each other in their technical descriptions. Should I reject all the atheistic theories as not pursuing truth because they contradict, and should I reject them as fairy tales because they don't explain everything and thus contain events that defy "natural" law ("supernatural" because unexplained by us)? No, that's no reason. Rather, the existence of competition indicates truth exists and people are seeking it. The existence of broad agreement in simpler facts of life indicates that agreement can be achieved in the harder facts too.

Do you wish to make good on your pursuit of truth by treating me as a person who can be persuaded to greater truth than I already have? If there's no god, I'd want to know that, wouldn't I? Is it possible that by finding areas we agree on there might be a basis for us to trust each other to dialogue about disagreements? There would be no point in it if we're just here to sound good to ourselves and to reassure ourselves in what we already believe; rather, exposure to alternate viewpoints is helpful in science in establishing which viewpoint is most in agreement with external reality (absolute truth). c/Atheist relies on the scientific method, but are you prepared to recognize how to use that method, and its natural limits?

If you haven't figured out the answer, it's that it's not a problem to us.

There are sometimes disagreements on nonessentials, there are sometimes disagreements on essentials that get resolved over time, and there are sometimes disagreements on essentials that don't get resolved, in which case over time it becomes realized that one party was not pursuing truth. Sometimes it takes a very long time, but in every long serious disagreement there is either a historical resolution and agreement, an ongoing dialogue, or a disappearance of one of the parties from the debate, usually due to other demonstrable evidence of not pursuing truth in the same spirit.

This principle is also useful for atheists seeking interpretations of physical evidence, so I share it.

If by "fairy tale" you mean an interpretation lacking a full explanation or understanding, all good scientists admit that their theory of everything is a fairy tale by that definition. But what other definition could there be to distinguish between us two?

"No problem" means "it's not my problem".

You started with a reasonable question and I indicated how reasonable people can come to agreed interpretations of unclear ancient texts. You then flag-waved your atheism and your standards of belief, and I pointed out the core issue necessary to determine their consistency or inconsistency, and linked you a number of compelling, falsifiable evidences. I've said my peace each time. Should your apathy be my problem? Perhaps you've hung out with Christians who believe their righteousness in part depends on convincing you of something?

Either you pursue truth in its spirit, or you aren't as interested in truth as you profess. Since you don't even seem interested in c/Atheist, but you do seem interested in snap botlike answers, which should I conclude?

What if I'm not interested in causing a person to believe who is so obviously self-sufficient in his belief? Jesus said the healthy do not need a doctor.

Interestingly I don't insist the same rule back to you, namely that you are under duty to demonstrate to me how you know something before I believe you. If I did your argument and system would collapse. To protect against this collapse, the golden rule or categorical imperative that we should not impose structures on others we are not willing to accept for ourselves is widely recognized by many atheists as a guide of life.

Hi Vlad! Yeah, after maybe a hundred uses of a term that dictionaries indicate is offensive, I do eventually gently ask if a user might recognize dictionary usage and modify practice. I'm pretty sure discussion was public. Same for any offensive term.

I learned from the greatest Jew of all and am faithful to his Word and the creeds his people have composed. Your ban expired, did you want to use your member privileges to push your narratives and do what we have come to recognize and know that motivated people of all races do?