Science Vs. God

I had already established that beliefs are indeed meaningless as it cannot change the world. This can manifest in the third philosophic puzzle and my criticism on the atheist scientific method. Repeating the argument without specifying a purpose is a shady method in an argument, it asks a lot of unnecessary questions that can be avoided in order to establish a more fluid and constructive argument.Furthermore, you personal accusation that I have used personal beliefs in order to justify my point of view is a fallacy, you seem to not recognize the difference between belief and logic. I insist that I remained logical and did not allow belief bias get in the way.Therefore, I give you permission to clarify you accusation outside the imposed boundary on words.You seem to have poor philosophic abilities for a logic-based discussion. You claim that you have the burden of proof, but that can easily be an interruption of your mind. Furthermore, you failed to address my first argument, most likely due to misunderstanding, you could have imagined your friend say it. When you falsify a statement, you agree with the opposite. So if life can't be a conscious/lucid dream, does this mean we have no free will?You have used "induction", which means to claim that past events proves the future, so you claim that the general rule of the sun is to rise everyday. But saying that the pasts can give us information about the future is not logical, nor can we come up with proof that it would be useful for the future. Induction cannot explain induction as that would create a closed circle. Eating the same dish does not prove it is going to taste the same or it is going to satisfy your hunger in the same degree.Therefore, your life is based on illogical and irrational assumptions, blind faith, and generalization. It would be impossible for you to live your life without relaying and irrationality.I have already addressed your last argument twice in two different formats. The refusal of acknowledgment is quite irritating. Therefore I shall point you to it is position so you can use the search function (Ctrl+F) if you truly find it so hard to identify arguments.||Lets say people in the past attributed earthquakes to God, and now we know that it is due to the movement of tectonic plates. Does this exclude God from the equation?...||||You still seem unsatisfied by my answer of why God was interrupted as the cause of everything.That logic is false.When you ask someone: "Why are you climbing that mountain?" He can give two correct explanations:1- "I want to see the view from top etc...||I have already argued that the big bang is against atheism."I think, however, that we must ... admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it." -H.S. LipsonThe dead-hand of a superseded theory continues to embarrass us, because in this case the recognised terminology still has implicit reference to it. This, however, is only a slight drawback to set off against the many advantages obtained from the classical generalisation of energy as a step towards the more complete theory -A S Eddington "I did not defend the theory of the universe stable as to its authenticity. but I wanted to being correct, but after accumulating evidence has shown us that the game is over .. And that we must leave aside the theory of the universe stable." -Dennis Scaima My argument still remain untouched.As for your burrito argument, it is cute. I can certainly imagine a child asking this question.Shame on who thinks that this is philosophy, you even used it as a stupid example. That absurdity is simply a "Stupid argument".Although the word "Omnipotent" explains that nothing can be greater than God, lets solve this argumentI can see that the formula for this argument is: 1-God is omnipotent, he can do anything. 2-God can create an uneatable burrito. 3-God can eat the said burrito. 4-An object that is eatable and uneatable at the same time exists. 5-God is a paradox. Have you heard of food that is absolutely uneatable? That is a paradox by itself since it contradicts the definition of food. Therefore, the object of the paradox must have a finite characteristic. As for the heavy rock argument, that would require an infinite dimension which is paradoxical since it does not have a definitive mass, and it takes an infinite amount of space.The omnipotent of God means perfection, therefore absolute rationality, therefore God would not create something unless there is infinite wisdom behind it.Lets assume we live in an atheist Utopia where religion is non-existent.(Remember, don't use "Religious crap" for these points)---1-How will you deal with a handicapped person in your society? Will you push him toward suicide in order for the said person to serve natural selection and not put burden on society or will you go against the theory?“Multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.” -Charles Darwin2-How would you give hope, optimism, and motivation to a handicapped person? How would you give these to hard workers and troubled people?3-Will you sterilize mentally retarded people so they would not have off-spring? If not, then why? And would this go against natural selection?4-Will marriage or families exist in such society?"The curse which lies upon marriage is that too often the individuals are joined in their weakness rather than in their strength, each asking from the other instead of finding pleasure in giving" -Simone de BeauvoirIs it simply a grand deception against our nature?5-Will sexual activities that are considered perverted be prevented? And in what justification would they be prevented and/or stopped?http://en.wikipedia.org...6-"the fortunes of railroad companies are determined by the law of the survival of the fittest." -James J. Hill.Do you agree with the context of this statement? If not, then why?7-"With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed." -Charles DarwinDo you agree with this statement? If not, then why? And do you think Social Darwinism would work?8-“We have stopped natural selection from purifying the species because deep in our heart of hearts, we are all terrified that we won't make the cut.” -Moxie MezcalDo you agree with this statement?9-“If they are sufficiently complete to live, they do live, and it is well they should live. If they are not sufficiently complete to live, they die, and it is best they should die." -Herbert SpencerDo you agree with this statement? If not, then why?---We must ask ourselves. Are we ready to live in such society? A society where we are humans no more?Atheism in it's purest form is against equality, freedom, human rights, morality, and humanity."A little philosophy inclineth mans mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth mens minds about to religion." -Francis Bacon