If a 3 year old child knows hurting others and

Stealing is wrong, but the combined might of all the science labs in the world cannot prove this simple truth essential for civilization, what level of faith should we have in the relationship between material science and truth?

Paul was a scholar yet said God chose the despised and lowly, even the poor fishermen and prostitutes, to shame the scholars, philosophers and men claiming to be wise. God says, "Look at what man has done to the earth. Has not man's wisdom proven foolish?" 1Cor 1:19-31

With great sarcasm, God said he would use his "foolish things" to shame the "wise" and save the humble, even warning us of false conclusions falsely called knowledge and science: 1Tim 6:20 (KJV). In God's Irony, he determined those claiming to see the most, can see the least. But to the open hearted chlldren, whose eyes still see,

Man Didn't Invent Irony - God did. How Ironic is it that those calling themselves THE BRIGHTS see no intelligence or design at all, anywhere, in all of creation?
Life Changing button ONE
Life Changing Button Two If you press this button, turn on your speakers and watch in full screen, you will no longer have any excuse to deny Apparent Design in Nature, Creature & Cosmos.

The dialog revolving around the question: "What is truth?" cannot progress if Atheists continue to ignore the collective wisdom of earth's greatest thinkers: The non-overlapping magisteria of science is extremely limited and has nothing to say on the most important truths known to man.

Beyond Scientific Measurement: Justice, Jurisprudence, Right, Wrong, Honor, Love, Beauty, Cruelty, Perversion, Greed, Sacrifice, Loneliness, Desolation, Righteousness, Hatred, Charity, Notions of Fellowship, Solidarity, Familial and Spousal Fidelity, Objective Measurement of Pleasure or Pain, Poetry, the Arts, Literature, Irony, Distinguishing Rightful and Abusive Sex, Hope, Freedom and Selfless Love whose greatest exemplar is Jesus Christ.

Why is it that prestigious universities teach metaphysics but atheists pretend metaphysical truth does not exist? It's an absurdly embarrassing denial of an inconvenient truth explainable only when one realizes the moment science acknowledges its own tiny scope, infinite limitations, and failure to access universally known truths via measuring of materials, it has to give up pretending God falls within its bean counting grasp.

Even if we do not insist on Epistemic consideration, politely ignore the soft ontological underbelly of science and turn a blind eye to the conspicuous absence of any confession of specifically known quantities inaccessible by the scientific method, going so far as to pretend confirmation bias in scoping and weighing evidence hasn't historically been a huge problem, we still have a problem.

When Proselytes of the Religion of Scientism irresponsibly claim nothing can be said to be true except that which is "scientifcally proven" by "facts" and "evidence" it becomes necessary to know the definitions of these terms and so we ask for exactly that: Scientifically proven non-tautological or non-arbitrarily presumptive definitions of:

1.) Evidence
2.) Proof
3.) Logic
4.) Reason
5.) Reality and Truth
6.) What it means when something is proven
7.) What percentage of space, things and truths have been proven that we may gauge how large is the unproven space, things and truths. The larger that set, the closer to an infinite set of things unknown, the more compelled are atheists to admit a greater probability of God existing within that space which contains truths whose status are unaffected by scientific ineptitude at measuring them.

Science variously fails to prove many reasonable truths, and even that "proven" is based on arbitrary tautological definitions. So why should anyone have blind faith science is up to the task of detecting God? Atheists require credulous faith in a fallible materialistic scientific method proven to be limited in scope and inept at detecting well known and expatiated rubrics.

Scientists habitually say facts are things proven by evidence. Then what is evidence? Scientists reply: Evidence is composed of facts. Tautology is a favorite verboten word and whipping boy of Atheism, but as we can see, arbitrary definition and tautology are at the heart of scientific notions of proof.

The answers inevitably define evidence by fact and fact by evidence. The greatest faith of all is to believe truth is limited to the set of data "proved" by nascent modes of material measurement, aka, a science evermore an infant compared to infinity and eternity - and the Creator of kittens, worlds, and angels.

What is Reality?

God claims to create and transcend Reality so if science is to allege competence in judging things outside of reality, or even inside their own definition of reality, we need to ask Scientism representatives: What is Reality?

Does reality consist of those rules and things perceived when awake, asleep, under anti-depressant drugs or other chemical influence or are there multiple realities and can any of this be scientifically proven? Atheists are unable to scientifically describe reality which, as with myriad other truths, is exclusively accessed through 1st person experience which defies the scientific method. 1st Person experience essentially comprises 100% of truth and reality for every human and yet science cannot access any of this.

What can we conclude from this? If only one thing is clear, let it be this: the material reality accessible by material science is an infinitesimally fractional subset of an overarching greater reality.

Was Mankind Unable to Detect and Know Truth before Scientism Came Along?

Disciples of Scientism maintain mankind must avoid believing in things not yet "discovered," proven and published by science. Imagine the frustration of those antediluvian thinkers who knew gravity existed, but were constantly pelted with pebbles by the ancestors of today's Scientismists for unauthorized unscientific belief.

That man is incapable of deducing truth without a bathroom pass from Science is a clumsily arrogant and preposterous insult embarrassing to atheists but understandably necessary since their twofold goal is to maintain an exclusive privilege to dispense truth and preclude the numinous.

Scientism is no different from Popery and Catholicism in this way. Scientists say our beliefs are untrue without evidence which they exclusively define and scope turning the credulous into supine intellectual lapdogs lining up, cups extended, hoping a Scientism Priest will fill it with truth.

It's a bit of a gamble, postponing belief in something until such time as a proper piece of Scientism equipment can take a reading on it. What if they find out God is true AFTER YOU ARE DEAD?

Things Academia Admits Science Cannot Access:

1) Logical and mathematical truths cannot be proven using science. Science presupposes principles of logic and math. Using science to prove logic and math is tautological.

2) Metaphysical truths such as:

a. The acceptance of minds other than our own.
b. The acceptance of the external world or that the past is not recent, with merely an appearance of age.
c. Rationality cannot be scientifically proven

3) Ethical beliefs about statements of value cannot be accounted for by scientific methods. Objective Judgments of right and wrong concluding that Nazi Axis scientists in concentration camps perfecting Jewish skin lampshades were evil compared to scientists allied with Christian-Western democracies.

4) Aesthetic judgments cannot be accessed by scientific methods. Beauty and other aesthetics, though universally understood engines of every society, cannot be scientifically proven.

5) Science itself cannot be justified by the scientific method. Science is filled with scientific assumptions that cannot be proven.

Confirmation Bias and Conflicting Interests

The atheist prejudice against intelligent design and notions of the numinous is overt and aggressive and the world has every reason to believe the scoping and conclusions of atheist scientist regarding evidence associated with a God they ridicule, would be riddled with Confirmation Bias.

Google turns up 8,000,000 hits for AWARDS FOR DESIGN.

Humans design robots that trip, stumble and after a century of engineering have recently designed pseudo hummingbirds that fly fractionally as well as God's hummingbirds. Prestigious accolades, scholarships and design awards are given to the designers for these inventions infinitely inferior and less capable than God's designs manifest in man, countless animals, creatures, insects, birds and the plant kingdom (not to mention the fine tuning of numerous eco systems, gravitational, magnetic, cellular and molecular systems and orbital relationships to galactic bodies.

A robot is worthy of design recognition but lions and cheetahs catching reeboks and gazelles, an elegant, beautiful, breathtaking drama made possible by superior design, receives no acknowledgement of any Design at all. Oddly inconsistent and irrational, to say the least, albeit unsurprising given atheist's prejudice against theism.

This recalcitrant denial of an intelligent designing force in the face of an earth filled with evidence clearly stems from the desire to preclude any possibility of God or a force that might impinge upon an AtheChrist lifestyle full of promiscuity, abortion, drunkeness, homosexuality, vivisection, pornography and its conjoined sex-trafficking industry. Atheists are used to sucking up life without giving thanks, ergo if God were acknowledged, the back log of thanks owed to God would be perceived as a substantial inconvenient burden. Ungratefulness is a hard habit to break.

Atheists routinely hand out prestigious design awards for well engineered buildings that require a foundation, energy sources that wear out, robots with crude senses of balance, but fail to see any design at all in:

*Earth: The greatest building
*The Sun - Sufficient energy so far
*And man - which puts any robot to shame

This nonsensical double standard removes any expectation that the atheist community would give a fair hearing of any evidence in support of God.

Reasons for Recusal

Although Doctors of Jurisprudence are trained to objectively render fair conclusions about facts presented in trials, a discovered interest in the outcome of the trial typically results in the judge being recused or removed from being judge of that trial.

Do atheists have an interest in denying God exists? What good is it to offer proof to someone whose bias will likely cause them to deny it? Mankind is infamous for voting along party lines regardless of evidence, as we saw in the OJ Simpson trial. Similarly in politics, men vote along party/herd/tribe/self-interest lines irrespective of truth, evidence or what is right.

That a growing percentage of atheists openly detest and hold Christians & theists in absolute derision and are on a mission to eradicate religion is not mysterious or obscure.

Additionally, AtheChrists cleave to hedonism, pornography, sex-trafficking, promiscuity and homosexuality and if the biblical God gains more traction in the culture, atheist pastimes will be forced underground.

We all know the score: If there is no God, we can do as we please. If Jesus is God and our eternal destiny is greatly affected by our regard for Him, it behooves us to respect his wishes.

Considering these things, we assert it's impossible to expect a fair objective hearing from atheists. Anyone failing to acknowledge these potential problems with objectivity immediately lose whatever semblance of objectivity they otherwise enjoyed.

---