Its never long before the next illiterate monkey-man raises from his big boy chair and makes the following redundant kind of statements:

"No evidence for God in science!"
and,
"Science is much better than religion because it actually studies shit"

Lets take these two 'tarded statements and examine the matter.

First lets establish what "science" is. Science is the study of observable phenomena, down through an assumed infinite chain of cause and effect. This might not be the definition of science, but it is the reality of science.

Consider a character in a computer game.
This character can look around, and realise that his world is governed by law. But if he synthetically limits his explanatory scope to the study of observable causes, he can ultimately only infer that the universe which he lives somehow exists necessarily. He can never get to the source code on the hard drive or enter the world which it exists. He cannot find positive evidence that the game world was created, even though its all around him, encoded into all of the 'natural' laws which support his existence. This is the ignorant position of Big Boy and his best friends who rely on science as the ultimate explicator of our existence.

But, released of this synthetic explanatory parameter, a critical thinking character might ask "how the power of the laws were set?", "where are they set?", "why are all of these laws contingent; working together in perfect amounts to produce a coherent, stable, productive universe?", "why should it be that this experience is always challenging?", "why is there a narrative?". Released of the synthetic dogma which limit his explanatory scope, this critical thinking character has the means to arrive closer to the truth.

There may be astonishing inferential evidence that the game world was created. The probability of it arising somehow naturally could literally be 0. But to the dogmatic atheist and naturalist with their synthetic parameters of explanation, it must be true that the game world just exists necessarily.

Their premise that nothing exists outside of the "natural" world is the basis for their faulty conclusion.

Big Boys who think that "No evidence for God in science!" is even relevant, have been completely brainwashed.


In the real world, not only is it impossible to find positive scientific evidence for God, but the "discoveries", of science are tried to use against the notion of God!

Not only that, but they arrive at this conclusion through patently circular logic;

"Hey bro. How do we explain complex life within our inherently atheistic science paradigm?"

"Well bro, there is only one possible way which could even be respectable.. somehow inanimate molecules came to life and somehow, imperceptibly over billions of years, they got more complex".

"Cool bro. Hey, i found a bunch of skulls all different sizes. When i line them up in order of size i can imagine that one morphed into another."

"Wow bro. That proves it then. Better phone cardinal Dawkins so he can write a new book about how evolution disproves God".

The real world is literally this ridiculous. There is no positive evidence for evolution it is all inferred deductively through that totally faulty premise which says there "must" be a naturalistic explanation.


So, whenever one of your local Big-Boy science-whelks try and argue that somehow science disproves God, or tries to create a dichotomy between God and science, or tries to claim that there is no evidence for God in science... Understand, you are talking to a moron.

This is a person who doesn't even understand what science is, or where its limits are. This is a person who's ideology is so profound that he actually dispenses of all reason and synthetically limits his explanatory power to support his rabid ideology. This person is not a representative of honesty, logic, reason or truth. This is a village idiot. Throw him 50c for some new underwear, and get on with your day.