Re: Scientific proof that God exists?

Checkmate atheists. Take off your fedoras in defeat.

It's a game with no end.

There is no ultimate truth, and that's not a problem for me as I'm agnostic.

Let's say that we all wake up one morning and we all have a popup box in our field of view reading "you are in a simulation".

Would we all discover any truth...? no, there will always be more questions... do the creators of our sim exist in a higher sim, or are they "real" etc. steps would have to be taken to determine possible causes for the shared popup, was it some weird virus dropped by ETs etc.

Only an egotistical fool would think they could find ultimate truth either way. Everybody should apply the best-fit solution to their own perceptions. But it does puzzle me how many theists sit like stubborn toddlers trying to push a square peg in a round hole, still if that pleases them then so be it.

I also note that those with polarized minds (theist and atheist) tend to stop researching and playing. Once they've labelled the box it gets shut, after that their faces drop a little and they become "adults", me I'm a 42 year old boy, I try to hold the same awe when I view the stars as when I was 10. I guess a simple term for agnostic is "keeping an open mind".

Absolute truth is unavoidable. Any attempt to state there is no absolute truth requires making an absolute conclusion.

Examples:
1) There is no absolute truth = it is the absolute truth there is no absolute truth
2) Truth is relative/subjective/etc. = it is the absolute truth that truth is relative/subjective/etc.
3) There is more than one absolute truth = it is the absolute truth that...
4) Nobody can know the absolute truth = I know it is the absolute truth that nobody can...

Basically, this means a couple things:
1) Agnostics can be proven to hold a nonsensical position.
2) Absolute truth is knowable inasmuch as the boundaries of sound logic can allow us to know it.

Edit: Look at how many absolute statements you make in your post. Your position irreconcilably contradicts itself.

Ok, let's say absolute truth is knowable, but we don't know it yet or haven't agreed upon what's this "absolute truth", so holding an Agnostic position on whether God exists or not is logical.

There's a difference between saying "I don't know" and "it is impossible to know." It's a *huge* difference. Furthermore, whether or not we "agree" about absolute truth has no bearing on its nature.

It's a logical position to say, "I don't know," but illogical to say, "It can't be known."

It's my belief that not only can it be known, but most of it is pretty self-evident (e.g. it is self-evident that the Universe cannot exist independent of observation, etc.).

You make these statements based on logic (and there's little doubt you are very intelligent), but have you considered the possibility that an omnipotent being is beyond logic? In the same way a worm does not have the capacity to understand the stock market, it is impossible for us to truly understand an omnipotent being. It's my understanding that you hold the position that if we follow a scientific method (ie. Metatron's Cube) god will eventually be revealed, because you believe god follows and is bound by this method. I'm suggesting that a truly omnipotent being doesn't and isn't. The mysteries of this entire (observable) universe may or may not be revealed by such a method, but I very much doubt it can ever reveal what is unobservable, whether it be outside of this universe, or what came before and after its existence.

This is why being agnostic makes perfect sense. (Meaning, God is unknowable.) Unless, you are one of the many believers that believe god gave us "His Word" as is written in the Bible, Koran, etc., then you can decide to be for god (ie. Christian) or against (ie. Satanist). Otherwise, you are left with atheism or anti-theism. Of all these positions on god, it's obvious that only the (correct) believers (that are worthy and on god's side) can truly know god, because god said so.