Debate: Does God exist?
Side: Atheism

Another fallacy since the scientific method cannot varify the scientific method. Unless you are able to varify it, your worldview is reduced to absurdity.This isn't the scientific method verifying the scientific method....The scientific method is verified because it allows us to run experiments, these experiments let us make predictions, these predictions produce real things. They produce vehicles, space shuttles, air conditioners, cell phones, computers, etc. We use the scientific method because it works by produces things, this is how it is verified. If you want to reject this, then your worldview becomes absurdity. Unless I trusted in a 2000 year old book my worldview would be absurd like yours. Because I believe in God, I have a reason to believe the scientific method because I have a reason believe in knowledge. To know anything you have to either know everything or know someone who does. If you don't, something you don't know could contradict what you do know, therefore you can't know anything. I do know someone who knows everything and you don't, therefore I have a reason for truth and you don't. You can't even logically prove your own existence, I can because of the 2000 year old book.Have you been watching a lot of Eric Hovind? He uses an argument similar if not identical to yours. Anyways, your premise is false. There are some things we can know for certain, without the two conditions you said. A priori statements are things we can know without having any experience. Not counting things like that, we don't need 100% certainty to be able to go about our lives. We have a practical sense of certainty, in that our "assumptions of science" actually work as we intend them to. My worldview is not absurd, but there are a few "i don't know's" in there. I'd rather have an "i don't know" than a fabricated and likely false explanation that makes me feel better. I can know things with a practical sense of certainty, or pretty much "99%" certainty. All you're doing is pretending to know someone who claims to know everything in the universe. But I can do the same thing as you and say that Zeus is my god, and that he knows everything. Or is Zeus an invalid god and yours is the correct one?Another fallacy, I can list several times in history where the people who were right were not famous, well regarded scientists. Yet I will give you an example: John Sanford, inventor of the 'gene gun' the first device able to change the molecular structure of plant cells.Apparently he does reject evolution, but it says his position is rejected by most people in his field....A good first step would be to define what you mean by 'Scientific Community'Why not glance at this page? Level of support for evolution - wiki Relevant passages:An overwhelming majority of the scientific community accepts evolution as the dominant scientific theory of biological diversity.[1][2] Nearly every scientific society, representing hundreds of thousands of scientists, have issued statements rejecting intelligent design[2] and a petition supporting the teaching of evolutionary biology was endorsed by 72 US Nobel Prize winners.[3] Additionally, US courts have ruled in favor of teaching evolution in science classrooms, and against teaching creationism, in numerous cases such as Edwards v. Aguillard, Hendren v. Campbell, McLean v. Arkansas and Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District.