Do you think that you exist? Is your existence provable scientifically? Are you THAT predictable? Does your actions need to be predictable for us to determine that you exist?
Do you seriously think that whether my actions are scientifically predictable
and whether my existence is scientifically provable
have anything to do with each other, Lukvance? Did you misread my post that much? Or are you just trying to play word games with me so you can try to conflate your god's supposed existence and your god's supposed actions together? Because you cannot prove that your god exists from actions you attribute to him, and even if your god does exist, it doesn't prove that actions you think are his doing actually are.
On the chance that you simply misunderstood, let me elaborate on the point I was trying to make. It is possible to prove that someone exists, but you need physical evidence that is unique to them in order to do so. For example, if you found a fingerprint, you would not be able to prove who's fingerprint it was unless you could perform a comparison with existing fingerprints or fingerprint records and find a match. The same goes with any other such physical evidence; you need a physical record that can be compared and directly identifies that person. And that's exactly what you don't have from your god.
Instead, you have supposed miracles and other things which you're attributing to your god. But you cannot use those as evidence for your god because they aren't unique to him. Some other god could have done them instead, for example. Or no god could have performed them at all. First you must show that your god actually exists in the real world by finding something that uniquely identifies him. With humans, we use fingerprints, retinas, and DNA, among other things, and other identifying information is tied to them. What can we use to identify your god and prove his existence? Then, and only then, can you attempt to show that your god was responsible for various things. You cannot point to various things that happen and claim that they're caused by your god when your gods existence is in question, because that's putting the cart before the horse.
As far as scientific predictability goes, my actions have no bearing whatsoever on my existence (except on the off chance that I do something which terminates my existence, such as jumping off a cliff). My actions - what I choose to do - do not have to be scientifically predictable in order for me to exist. However, you cannot scientifically predict my actions from the mere fact that I exist and my physical properties which I have no control over. And you certainly cannot scientifically predict my actions if I am aware of your prediction, because I might act to thwart it, or I might act to aid it, or I might ignore it. That was the point I was trying to make with this; your god's actions are not scientifically predictable unless he has no choice but to act in that fashion and cannot change the way he acts. And if that's the case, your god isn't an entity, but an object. It would be like if someone worshiped the sun; they could certainly prove that the sun existed, and even predict what the sun would do for the most part (although their ability to predict would be limited by what they could observe). But the only reason that would work is because the sun cannot change its actions based on what humans do or don't do. It cannot choose to stop shining, for example. And thus, it is an object, not an entity; a thing, not a being.
Presuming your god exists for the sake of this specific point. If your god's actions are scientifically predictable, then it is an object which will act as it does regardless of anything you do or don't do. If your gods actions are not scientifically predictable, then he is a being who might change his actions based on things you do or don't do. So which is it? You can't have it both ways, Lukvance.
That would be interpreting me wrong. I am saying that we don't know enough to have it each time we "look for it". We have it enough times to be sure that it is real.
Actually, we don't. Science isn't something you can be certain about. There's no guarantee that when we do more tests, we won't find something that disqualifies what we currently think of as the Higgs boson from actually being one. Or that something wasn't messed up with the LHC and caused those two teams to get skewed info, and when they resume testing in 2015 or whenever it is, that they'll be able to reproduce their findings.
You got it wrong about God. He is not the one "making a miracle recognizable or not recognizable". You have to remember that we don't know everything about God. We learn more everyday. I believe we will never "fully understand" God because he is infinite. And this infinity makes him "always more". It doesn't mean that we cannot find his interactions based on what we know.
Not trying to be rude, but that's not very meaningful, especially since we have no way to show that an infinity actually exists in reality.
The following works in both cases :
"Once it interact with the world (if it does) it will leave basically the same clues."
So can we make your god appear, the way we can smash particles together to cause a Higgs boson reaction? Or do we just have to have faith that he exists and count things which may or may not be him as 'evidence', because of what theologians have come up with?
Not in that particular way but in a similar one we can define a clear cause-effect relationship. As clear as your fingerprint has a clear cause-effect relationship to you.
Sure, you can define a cause-effect relationship. You can do that for things that don't exist as well as for things that do. So you can't use the cause-effect relationship as proof of anything, at least not proof that would convince a skeptic.
I shared with these people some links that would allow them to understand without taking my word for it. My assertions are supported by a huge community. They are not product of my imagination. Unlike some of the claims I've read presented as counter argument.
Providing links to other people's work only works if people accept that those people are authorities on the subject, otherwise it's an argument from authority fallacy. The number of people who agree with you is irrelevant; that's an argument from numbers fallacy. The fact that you, yourself, didn't dream up this stuff doesn't prove it's real.
Some people have seen God (people who lived with Jesus).
This assumes Jesus was an actual person who actually lived.
That proves you wrong when you say "nobody's ever actually seen this supposed clue-maker" but does it make him more real?
No, it doesn't prove me wrong, because you're assuming that what the Bible says is true, even though we have no independent verification of most of the stuff in the New Testament. It's only once we get to the various letters written by Paul that we see actual independent verification.
Or does it must have to be you who see him? Wouldn't that makes you like Zola?
It has to be independently verified. That doesn't necessarily mean me, but it does mean people who aren't believers in your religion.