[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

1

[alancalverd]

Why "him"?

What sort of pathetic being (other than a priest or politician - the lowest forms of human parasite) requires others to revere and worship it?

Adultery is certainly a bad idea, (though the Anglican church was founded on it, and the Greek gods were into all sorts of deviance) but over the centuries and up to the  present, a lot of theft and murder has been blamed on the Will of the Almighty.

You have given your supposed creator many attributes that an intelligent and moral man despises in humans. Let us sincerely hope that it doesn't actually exist.

[cpu68]

The scientific judgment addresses the fundamental concept of the existence of God

The existence of God is a fact, although not so obvious. Theoretically, the existence of God could become the subject of a factual scientific judgment.

[Bored chemist]

"Can the Existence of God Be Verified Using the Scientific Method?"
No, and there's a proof of that.
So you can stop trying.

https://ericthegodeatingpenguin.com/

[Bored chemist]

The scientific judgment addresses the fundamental concept of the existence of God

The existence of God is a fact, although not so obvious. Theoretically, the existence of God could become the subject of a factual scientific judgment.

As a concept, God exists.
As an entity which deliberately created the universe and us; there's no proof to say so.

[alancalverd]

Theoretically, the existence of God could become the subject of a factual scientific judgment.

So you have to ascribe a testable characteristic that predicts the outcome of an experiment that you haven't yet done. Please do so.

[Bored chemist]

"Can the Existence of God Be Verified Using the Scientific Method?"
No, and there's a proof of that.
So you can stop trying.

https://ericthegodeatingpenguin.com/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-God-Eater-argument

Now show me a valid point, not a link to some people who didn't understand the question.

[alancalverd]

The Judgment on the scientific validity of assuming infinite repetitions for a specific experiment.

In Einstein's words: "one would be enough".

[cpu68]

As a concept, God exists.
As an entity which deliberately created the universe and us; there's no proof to say so.

You can say that there is no proof, but I can also say that it is a fact, or even empirical fact.

So you have to ascribe a testable characteristic that predicts the outcome of an experiment that you haven't yet done. Please do so.

I could say that such test can be an observation, it would be equivalent to an experiment.

[alancalverd]

A hypothesis is only scientifically relevant if it is accurately or at least usefully predictive of an observation.

[alancalverd]

To be clear, I'm not saying that what I'm talking about is science in the strict, empirical way (like: hypothesis → experiment → falsification).

Then you are not talking about science but philosophy (competitive like chess, but without the accompanying pleasure) or religion (the nadir of human parasitism and gullibility).

accepting a theory because it makes sense, or following expert agreement when scientific ideas are changing.

Aristotelian physics, phlogiston, flat earth, geocentric universe....

 

[Kryptid]

certain truths like the beauty of flowers are undeniable

That's an opinion, not a truth.

[alancalverd]

Beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

[Bored chemist]

You can say that there is no proof, but I can also say that it is a fact, or even empirical fact.

You can say 2+2=5 and you would be wrong about that too.

[Bored chemist]

"Can the Existence of God Be Verified Using the Scientific Method?"
No, and there's a proof of that.
So you can stop trying.

https://ericthegodeatingpenguin.com/

https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-God-Eater-argument

Now show me a valid point, not a link to some people who didn't understand the question.

Still waiting...

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

You can say that there is no proof, but I can also say that it is a fact, or even empirical fact.

You can say 2+2=5 and you would be wrong about that too.

Actually 2+2=5 is already proven wrong. But the existence of God is not proven wrong. It is more like x+y+z=5, when x, y, z are unknown can be true or false.

[alancalverd]

Please describe the characteristics and actions of a god that might actually exist, explain how it was created, and use your model to make a testable prediction.

[alancalverd]

The phrase "scientific truth" is rarely if ever used by professional scientists. We may hold some common observations to be selfevident, like the sun rising in the east, but scientific knowledge consists entirely of measurements that can be checked and repeated, and the residue of predictive hypotheses  that have not been disproved by experiment.

Your god is not an observation or a predictive hypothesis. The god of the Old Testament is capricious at best, and by the time of the New Testament, bizarre to the point of criminal negligence.  The Big Bang is a hypothesis that neatly predicts several observations and has not yet been disproved.

[alancalverd]

I repeat - "fine tuned" is a lie promulgated by the perverts who sell religion. The universe is as it is, and the numbers we associate with it are the consequence of its existence, not the cause of it. 

How did the author of Genesis test his hypothesis?

What created your god? Why? What makes you think that life on earth is the intended end product? Given that life on earth will be extinguished in not more than 10 billion years, why is it a big deal?

Theism isn't an answer to anything.  At best it is just the opening of a can of further questions that theists refuse to answer, and at worst it is a pathetic excuse for not thinking.