God is a CONCEPT

    It is impossible to prove or disprove god because god neither exists nor fails to exist.  It's like trying to prove the number e exists: chances are that you've never actually seen e in real life, you've only read about it in books.  Of course, it would be silly to say that the existence of e is therefore infinitely improbable, since  e doesn't go about existing or not existing anyway.
    This is where /sci/ seems to be stuck, trying to prove/disprove the general concept of god.  For the arguments to progress, you need to understand the relationship between god and religion.  Religion tends to consist of three components: God(s), miracles, and practices.  Miracles are what the religion claims to be god's manifestation on Earth: these range between things that happened naturally(ie the existence of the universe, people recovering from illness on their own) and magical stories of things that never really happened(ie Moses parting the Red Sea, God creating the world in a week.)  Practices are the component of religion that says things like: love thy neighbor, thou shalt not murder, slay the infidels (often openly conflicting with itself.)  Religion ties the three together using miracles to "prove" that their god "exists" and wants them to follow their religion's practices.  The miracle->god->practice chain is normally non sequitur and is facilitated by a magic book (ie bible, qur'an) and/or a class of priests/prophets who are free to (mis)interpret the religion for the common people.
    Religion is afraid of science because science can disprove the "miracles" with which religion "proves" its god is correct.  However, neither science nor religion can prove/disprove a concept.

>>55
I'm forced to disagree with your response again.  I asked a question regarding the meaning of a particular phrase that you had used.  I did not agree or disagree with something you had said, I merely asked for clarification.  You repeatedly pointed to my post, ignored what I had said and started talking about various other points you had already made related to other posts.

I'm convinced you can't be asking that question seriously.  There is a relevance to the thread's topic, and there is a seperate relevance if I do something like this: >>55 In response to what you've said...

You made a post relevant to the topic of the thread.  I made a post relevant to the wording you used in your post.  You pointed to my thread and made posts relevant to the topic of the thread, but neither relevant to my post nor what it was relevant to, the wording you used in your post.  If you don't recognize that as strange, I'm not sure how to help you.

I didn't try to worm my way out of anything, It took you a couple tries to sit still for three seconds and say something like, 'no what I said was correct', which is just a self-validation rather than a clarification.

And still again, you've managed to pull shit out of nowhere: My "reality-contrary opinion"?  What opinion is that?  Certainly not one regarding religion or god or anything supernatural, since I haven't commented on those in this thread.  So, on the basis of logic alone, I have to assume that you mean the only opinion I've espoused here: that you're making shit up and being incoherent.  However, proof is increasingly abundant.