The insanity of religion

For me it was the knowledge that Matthew 6 was logical for me, who as a young kid I had determined some people who were not very intelligent were telling me what god is saying. I read the bible, and I found most of these folks dictating what is christian was skewed and strange. So as an adolescent, I embraced the clarity of Matthew 6 much like the Protestant reformation which questioned the authority of the Church.

Things began to get more complicated after taking numerous philosophy courses and debating the best thinkers on the existence of God. Discussions which have happened for hundreds and hundreds of years as each person tests the limits of empirical verification of God. Yet, my adolescent rebellion against my perception that hypocrisy ruled modern religion soon evolved into a common thread concerning a concept of truth. In philosophy there is a certainty in the natural world, math, and science which is certain and appears to not just be random but a central apex.....something higher is not random but a unifying force in our universe. It is this side of the equation which is complex and not an adolescent rebellion against BS.

I think each person has a personnel journey. I know incredibly intelligent people who are atheist and agnostic, and I know incredibly intelligent people of faith. I have found truth to be a central organizational tenet in my life which involves actions over words. Good is not an abstraction and evil is real. Working for good and truth is consistent with my beliefs. Working with propaganda and lies is not consistent with my beliefs. I make no pretense of having any answers for anybody else. I am simply quite at peace with my beliefs and the truths of this world.

Vikingwoman wrote: Are we more forward in our thinking that there is no reason we are here and we create the importance of our existence?

Think about your words:  "...reason we are here..."

The word "reason" is the key to the answer you're looking for.
If you read through all the various definitions for that word,  in all the various dictionaries,  it all describes something purely human.  
So what you're looking for is a human understanding of the nature of all that exists.  
But what we are and what we do and how we think,  is hardly the explanation for everything which exists.  Hell,  our "reason" doesn't have a  clue what actually exists.  What we know to exist is limited by our senses and our capacity to do HUMAN "reason".  Again with emphasis on HUMAN.
But god only knows what exists which is outside of or beyond any HUMAN "reasoning".
And I say "god only knows" for a reason because that's what god is to me.  God is whatever is beyond my capacity to comprehend.  Could be literally anything because it's inconceivable to my human mind.

Teo,

About a half hour ago on Alex Jones' radio show,  Jones said "this Pope is a sickening piece of trash".

When we compare what Jones is saying publicly with what the Pope is saying publicly,   here's a question for you.   Which one of the two would Jesus Christ be more aligned with?

[edit]  and by the way for those who aren't familiar with Jones,  he wears his Bible believing Christianity on his sleeve.

2seaoat wrote:For me it was the knowledge that Matthew 6 was logical for me, who as a young kid I had determined some people who were not very intelligent were telling me what god is saying.  I read the bible, and I found most of these folks dictating what is christian was skewed and strange.  So as an adolescent, I embraced the clarity of Matthew 6 much like the Protestant reformation which questioned the authority of the Church.

Things began to get more complicated after taking numerous philosophy courses and debating the best thinkers on the existence of God.  Discussions which have happened for hundreds and hundreds of years as each person tests the limits of empirical verification of God.  Yet, my adolescent rebellion against my perception that hypocrisy ruled modern religion soon evolved into a common thread concerning a concept of truth.   In philosophy there is a certainty in the natural world, math, and science which is certain and appears to not just be random but a central apex.....something higher is not random but a unifying force in our universe.  It is this side of the equation which is complex and not an adolescent rebellion against BS.

I think each person has a personnel journey.  I know incredibly intelligent people who are atheist and agnostic, and I know incredibly intelligent people of faith.   I have found truth to be a central organizational tenet in my life which involves actions over words.  Good is not an abstraction and evil is real.  Working for good and truth is consistent with my beliefs.  Working with propaganda and lies is not consistent with my beliefs.  I make no pretense of having any answers for anybody else.  I am simply quite at peace with my beliefs and the truths of this world.

Truth is subjective in your world which is why it can only be deemed an opinion and not truth.

Bob wrote:

Vikingwoman wrote: Are we more forward in our thinking that there is no reason we are here and we create the importance of our existence?

Think about your words:  "...reason we are here..."

The word "reason" is the key to the answer you're looking for.
If you read through all the various definitions for that word,  in all the various dictionaries,  it all describes something purely human.  
So what you're looking for is a human understanding of the nature of all that exists.  
But what we are and what we do and how we think,  is hardly the explanation for everything which exists.  Hell,  our "reason" doesn't have a  clue what actually exists.  What we know to exist is limited by our senses and our capacity to do HUMAN "reason".  Again with emphasis on HUMAN.
But god only knows what exists which is outside of or beyond any HUMAN "reasoning".
And I say "god only knows" for a reason because that's what god is to me.  God is whatever is beyond my capacity to comprehend.  Could be literally anything because it's inconceivable to my human mind.

Agreed Bob. So my human mind is seeking human understanding of all that exists. God is not of my human mind.

Vikingwoman wrote:

Agreed Bob. So my human mind is seeking human understanding of all that exists. God is not of my human mind.

Another way to help grasp this is to consider the two terms unknown and unknowable.
What is unknown to us,  can and often does,  become known to us.
But what what we're discussing now is very likely unknowable.  And what is unknowable,  by definition,  will not become known to us.

If I could be Pope For A Day,  my message would be for us to get over it and stop denying reality.   We don't have to know everything there is.  And we really need to stop making up shit to replace what we cannot know.
I don't know why the acceptance of that reality has to be such a downer to so many.  Hell you can still pray to your heart's content.  It's even more wondrous to pray to something you can't comprehend.  A lot more fulfilling to me than praying to that psycho bible or koran god.
Although I would throw in the Golden Rule on top of all of it and that does come from the bible and the koran and every other religion and philosophy.

Bob wrote:My mistake,  seaoat.  For some reason I thought you were into the Bible.
As long as it doesn't come from books,  I have no quarrel with anyone's religion.

Why does a book frighten you?

Markle wrote:

Bob wrote:My mistake,  seaoat.  For some reason I thought you were into the Bible.
As long as it doesn't come from books,  I have no quarrel with anyone's religion.

Why does a book frighten you?  

Good question, markle.
My answer has two parts to it.

The first answer applies to books in general. The only thing any book ever was and still is, is a written version of human ideas.
And we continue to discover how much wrong there is with how even recent human history has been written down in books that I'm really surprised that any thinking individual would not be skeptical about what was written down thousands of years ago.

The second part of my answer applies to the Bible and the Koran specifically.
With those, it's not so much my skepticism about writing stuff down thousands of years ago as it is with what was specifically written in those books.
If you really take a good look at it, most of it is not anything we would actually want to live our lives by. At least I wouldn't...

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/quran/index.htm

SheWrites wrote:

2seaoat wrote:Not believing is easy.  Criticizing religion is easy.  Any person with moderate intelligence can find inconsistencies in religion.  It takes much higher intelligence to conceptualize what can not be empirically verified.  To think that faith and the pursuit of that which cannot be empirically verified is fear is a pedestrian attempt at higher conceptualization like a child fearful of the boogeyman transferring her fear to others, and then saying they are afraid.  I fear ignorance and it consistently scares me.

Good post, Seaoat.

Faith, hope, and love.  All require letting go of the ownership of one's self.  Most people today are too enthralled with themselves and their supposed intelligence to find faith, hope, and love in their lives.  

Totally separate from "religion."

Interesting discussion. It does not appear that anyone in this discussion would deny there is a physical and spiritual life - whether admitted, denied, or questioned. Everyone questions. It's in our nature. How we seek to find the answers is a personal journey. I find the sharing of the journeys to be part of what makes us grow.

Religion played a very important role in the development of society. It inserted fairness and civility to a large degree.

People can emphasize the negatives and intolerances that occurred... but I think overall it was helpful... perhaps crucial.

2seaoat wrote:Don't you believe in the christian god?

Again, for the fourth time.  I believe in absolute truths in nature, math, and science, and central to that belief is the apex of truth is God.

The problem here is that this statement is so vague that it doesn't effectively mean anything.  You're simply restating the fact that you believe in a god in a vague, semi-incoherent way.

2seaoat wrote:I am willing to try any portal to find the truth.  I have chosen of my own free will to use Matthew Six and Christianity to find God with the faith that truth does exist.

Well then you believe in the christian god.  That is what I said.  So the question was: What is it about Matthew Six that makes you subscribe the such an extraordinary claim as the idea of a supernatural god?  And what is it about the flying spaghetti monster story that makes you skeptical?

And as an aside, when you say "I have chosen of my own free will...", what do you actually mean there?   Most religious people were indoctrinated into their faith as children.  Was that not the case for you?

2seaoat wrote: I believe that God is not exclusive as to a portal to the truth which I demonstrated with simple math.

But you didn't show anything with math.  You babbled incoherently.  Watch.  I'll do it as well:  But you see, 2seaoat, your math was wrong there.  Wisdom is logic, and logic is truth.  Truth hangs in a balance, and a balance has two sides.  Therefore, 1+2 cannot equal 24.  You see, I have just shown you with math that the flying spaghetti monster is in fact our one true creator.

2seaoat wrote:The answer has many approaches but only one true answer.  These are simple concepts I am talking about, and I may be proven wrong empirically many years in the future when man expands their sensory limitations of the present.  However, to ridicule those who believe in something which cannot empirically verified, is again only one half of the equation.  Nature, math, and science provide us the other half of the equation which confirms universal absolutes and truth.  God is truth.

I ridicule those who believe because the doctrines are so obviously false.  Hypothetical scenario.  Let's say that you have a son who is in first grade and it's report card day.  Let's say your son comes home with a sheet of notebook paper that reads: "This isz Matt's (your son's name is Matt) reporte kard!  Matt's got all As and a Beee"  would you be skeptical of that document?

Let's say your dog approached you one day with a sheet of paper that read: "A kneww laww haz bin past.  No mor katz r aloud n this hous.",  would you be skeptical of that document?

Let's say you read a book written in ancient barbaric times in which women were treated as property, slavery was prevalent, punishments were swift and incredibly harsh, and the general level of knowledge at the time was very low; and let's say that the book was said to be an explanation of the creation of our universe.   The book, coincidentally, is also incredibly harsh, ignorant, and barbaric.  Women need to do what their men say or else.  Etc, etc.  Many of the claims in the book can be factually refuted today based upon our current understanding of the world because we know considerably more today than the people did in the past when the book was written.  And if you don't believe this, you will but tortured in a pit of fire forever. Wouldn't you be skeptical of that document?   What if there were thousands of these books, all making equally extraordinary claims and all being incompatible with the rest?   Wouldn't that make you even more skeptical?

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

boards of FL wrote:

TEOTWAWKI wrote:[I can't accept quantum mechanics because] "I like to think the moon is there even if I am not looking at it."
Albert Einstein

Acts 17: 27 God did this so that they would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from any one of us. 28 For in him we live and move and have our being.

Yeah, you should stay away from quantum mechanics.

There is a unity of substance, ether, whatever that reaches and permeates theoretically throughout the universe. It is within that substance we and all things exist in unity. That old song we are stardust isn't too far off. We are all one within God who willed us into existence. For in him we have our existence, being........Like a fish that doesn't comprehend water because he lives within it.

Funny how the thing that breathes takes for granted where it's breath came from.

I see. So since the subatomic world obeys quantum mechanics, we can therefore conclude that allah is the one true supreme god?

Am I understanding you correctly here? If not, can you clarify?

Markle wrote:I'm curious why it matters to those here who share Wordslinger's, BoardofFL, Viking and a few others why I believe in God.  Prove it?  Why?  That's why it is called FAITH.

I could go on all day.

The problem here is that this statement is so vague that it doesn't effectively mean anything.

If this is all you have, then this discussion will be over shortly. You argue that God does not exist. That my statement of existence is vague and does not effectively mean anything. Your assumption is that we have discovered all math, science, and the nature of our universe, and today in the absence of empirical verification of the existence of God you are right and God is non existent, and only fools believe in the Spahgetti God.

You are simply wrong. We do not have answers for all math, science, and the nature of our universe. Even today there is an Apex of truth in all these areas. However, within that paradigm there is the undiscovered truths and the totality of unification under that central truth which is God. Please read Pascal's wager. I think the probabilities of Pascal's wager I am comfortable with, and you are certainly entitled to your wager, but you have lost the same at the git go. Certainly, Descartes speaks of perfection, and I speak of truth, but we share the same central thesis. You cannot disprove the existence of God and ultimate truth and perfection. In its absence you become shrill and declare with certainty that there is no truth or perfection beyond the present, and therein lies your central fallacy.

Could have banned slavery or shellfish.

He chose shellfish!

2seaoat wrote:The problem here is that this statement is so vague that it doesn't effectively mean anything.

If this is all you have, then this discussion will be over shortly.

But that's clearly not all that I had.  That's the only sentence of my post that you chose to respond to.  There was a lot more to my post.  But aside from that, yes, your post is so incredibly vague that it doesn't effectively mean anything.  You're basically saying "But, like, math, science, nature....therefore god"  That isn't a coherent explanation for the existence of god.

2seaoat wrote:You argue that God does not exist.

I already conceded that it is impossible to prove that god does not exist.  More correctly stated, there is no evidence for the existence of god or the supernatural.  There is no good reason to believe that a supernatural god exists.  Based on what we know of the natural world and based upon the countless doctrines that exist, it is highly unlikely that any of them are correct.

That said, we still will never be able to prove that a god does not exist.

2seaoat wrote:  That my statement of existence is vague and does not effectively mean anything.  Your assumption is that we have discovered all math, science, and the nature of our universe, and today in the absence of empirical verification of the existence of God you are right and God is non existent, and only fools believe in the Spahgetti God.

I have made no assumption that we have discovered everything about math, science, and nature.  In fact, I am certain that we have not.  We haven't even scratched the surface.  I am the one who is comfortable not knowing and conceding that our knowledge - as developed as it has become - is still incredibly limited.  You are the one who invents a place holder for not knowing.  The religious claim to know how the universe came to be.  I, on the other hand, do not. You're getting yourself and I confused here.  I have a reason to investigate how our universe came to be.  You, on the other hand, do not because you already know.  God did it.  People also used to see no need in investigating why the sun rises and sets.  Bill O'Reilly sees no need to investigate the reason for the changing tides because god did it.  Ancient civilizations felt no need to investigate why storms or natural disasters happen.  God did it.  And they felt that they must therefore do whatever they could (sacrifices, pray, etc) to appease that god so that they didn't bring any more evil upon themselves.  

This is known as a "god of the gaps" argument.  You're basically saying "There are things that we don't currently know about or understand, therefore, god."   If that is the argument that you want to make, you're basically saying that god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.  God used to cause the sun to rise and set.  God used to cause the tides to go in and out.  God used to cause death.  God used to cause the changing season.  Today, god isn't really needed to explain hardly anything outside of  "What happened before the big bang?"  That is the current hiding place for god.  In time, I suspect we won't need god for that explanation either.

2seaoat wrote:Please read Pascal's wager.  I think the probabilities of Pascal's wager I am comfortable with, and you are certainly entitled to your wager, but you have lost the same at the git go.  Certainly, Descartes speaks of perfection, and I speak of truth, but we share the same central thesis.  You cannot disprove the existence of God and ultimate truth and perfection.   In its absence you become shrill and declare with certainty that there is no truth or perfection beyond the present, and therein lies your central fallacy.

Pascals wager is absolutely the worst philosophical argument for the existence of god that has ever been made.  Watch this.  There is a religion called Dragonism.  It's doctrine states that there is a 16 headed dragon called Yabtoraok.  Yabtoraok commands us to spend our entire lives learning as much about math and science as we possibly can.  If we fail to do that, Yabtoraok will torture us forever in a pit of fire.  

OK.  On one hand, I could consider this claim and then naturally write it off as complete nonsense.  On other other hand, what if it is true?  If true my skepticism will cause me to be tortured forever.  I suppose I may as well say that I believe in Yabtoraok since the possibility of being tortured for eternity far outweighs the cost of learning as much about math and science as possible.

We could apply this argument to the most asinine propositions out there.  The entire universe rests inside the eye of a clown.  If we don't spend our lives worshiping this clown, he will bring the worst imaginable evil upon us in the afterlife.  Well, may as well believe in that one as well.

And beyond that, lets assume that god does in fact exist for a second.  Do you honestly think that viewing the proposition of belief or skepticism through the lens of a self-interested wager would be considered acceptable to a god?  Come on now.


2seaoat, I asked you this in my last post but you didn't respond. How did you come to be a christian? Were you indoctrinated as a child?

2seaoat, I asked you this in my last post but you didn't respond. How did you come to be a christian? Were you indoctrinated as a child?

I attended church regularly as a child. About sixth grade I began to have questions which could not be answered logically. By eighth grade, like you I was beginning to doubt the logical explanations which were being presented to me by very stupid people. I found too many contradictions in scripture and found that much of religion was superstition, and simple ritual.

By ninth grade I had found Matthew Six and found guidance. I no longer attended church regularly. Easter or Christmas, but I found that I had a natural revulsion to people dictating to me what God was with simplistic concepts which made no sense in scripture or within the physical world which in eighth grade I had achieved a unitary sense of truth in science and math. I found that I had created a paradigm which explained physics, geography, math, chemistry, and biology. In my eighth grade mind I had advanced in my scholarly pursuits to have an understanding of the world I lived. Now with each year which has passed, I have discovered that more questions are raised every day with branches of knowledge from my unitary paradigm, and with that more questions about what is not known and yet discovered, the importance of a unitary apex of perfection and truth became increasingly more obvious as I discovered that I could never understand empirically the world I lived and that my mastering of my paradigm as an eighth grader still basically guided my life in my physical life, but increasingly those assumptions of the truths of nature, math, and science were changing as our human knowledge base grew. With this process came an ever increasing certainty that there is perfection and truth in the universe and it is at the apex of yet discovered reality. Matthew six provided me with the portal to try to discover the unification of those truths and the perfection of the concept of God. To that end I live my life simply following the Matthew six as guidance in my Christian beliefs. I find it to simple to stand like the hypocrites who pray the loudest telling all the path to God, and I find it to simple to simply state God does not exist because I am incapable of understanding all truth in the universe at this time, and in the absence of such knowledge come to the illogical conclusion that God does not exist. I am not indoctrinated, but free.

2seaoat wrote:2seaoat, I asked you this in my last post but you didn't respond. How did you come to be a christian? Were you indoctrinated as a child?

I attended church regularly as a child.  About sixth grade I began to have questions which could not be answered logically.  By eighth grade, like you I was beginning to doubt the logical explanations which were being presented to me by very stupid people.  I found too many contradictions in scripture and found that much of religion was superstition, and simple ritual.

By ninth grade I had found Matthew Six and found guidance.  I no longer attended church regularly.  Easter or Christmas, but I found that I had a natural revulsion to people dictating to me what God was with simplistic concepts which made no sense in scripture or within the physical world which in eighth grade I had achieved a unitary sense of truth in science and math.  I found that I had created a paradigm which explained physics, geography, math, chemistry, and biology.  In my eighth grade mind I had advanced in my scholarly pursuits to have an understanding of the world I lived.  Now with each year which has passed, I have discovered that more questions are raised every day with branches of knowledge from my unitary paradigm, and with that more questions about what is not known and yet discovered, the importance of a unitary apex of perfection and truth became increasingly more obvious as I discovered that I could never understand empirically the world I lived and that my mastering of my paradigm as an eighth grader still basically guided my life in my physical life, but increasingly those assumptions of the truths of nature, math, and science were changing as our human knowledge base grew.   With this process came an ever increasing certainty that there is perfection and truth in the universe and it is at the apex of yet discovered reality.  Matthew six provided me with the portal to try to discover the unification of those truths and the perfection of the concept of God.  To that end I live my life simply following the Matthew six as guidance in my Christian beliefs.  I find it to simple to stand like the hypocrites who pray the loudest telling all the path to God, and I find it to simple to simply state God does not exist because I am incapable of understanding all truth in the universe at this time, and in the absence of such knowledge come to the illogical conclusion that God does not exist.  I am not indoctrinated, but free.

If you had been born and raised in Kuwait, don't you think it very likely that you would subscribe to islam?  If you had been born in a particular region of the world where (insert religion) is prevalent, and if your parents were also (insert religion), don't you think it highly likely that you yourself would be (insert religion)?  Had you been born in ancient Greece, don't you think it likely that you would have worshiped Zeus?  And how unfortunate it would have been for you if you were born before the invention of christianity!  No matter what you did with your life, hell awaited you!

Isn't your current religious identification more attributable to random chance (time/era, geography, your parents) than a serious consideration of all religious claims available, and then a selection of the one that you felt seemed the most likely?

I am watching the Prayer service at the 911 site. There are 12 religious folks giving prayers within their belief system and portal to God. To each one can find fault and contradiction, but there is none to concept of God as perfection and truth and the unification of the Universe under one truth in nature, math, and science. I have chose a Christian portal, and under that portal I am already connected to the concept of God and the universal truths of the universe. I do not have to be validated by any of these 12 religious folks or your denial of God and truth. I am free.

So no response and back to the incredibly vague stuff. Looks like we're done here.

Or should I say...ahem...indeed there is supreme truth in the universe. Math, science. There are disciplines of knowledge. 1+1=2. Perfect harmony. Universal intelligence. Something about divine spirit. This portal is a direct connection with the creator. Etc. etc. Yes. Amen.

I anticipated your next statement. I was fortunate to be watching the prayer service. Again you simply think disconnected a cable to the internet whether it is by DSL, or cable will change the truth and order of the internet. It is not the portals of the internet, which may have broken connections or have portals connected to a toaster alleging they are on the internet......the internet exists, it is definable, it has central truths, and the connection to the same is the wrong analytical point of understanding........at some future date a connection to the same may be beyond our current knowledge. So you go around and check the connections and declare the randomness of connections, the failure of connections, and the very non existence of the internet without proper empirical evidence of the same.......you can argue quite effectively if there are no connections to the same, there is no internet. Again, this is your central fallacy. You assume to understand what you do not understand, and think that our knowledge like my knowledge of the world is complete and your paradigm does not allow for the concept of that which cannot be empirically verified. That my friend is a fools errand, and each of these folks who prayed in the service I am watching may be connected to the toaster, but truth and perfection does exist, they just may not have found it yet.......

Sounds like you have a real conflict w/ what reality tells you and what you've been indoctrinated with, Oatie and you just decided you will believe in a God and chalk it up to not understanding all the universal truths.

back to the incredibly vague stuff.

What is vague about absolute truth and perfection in a unitary system where God is the apex. I think a person cannot get much more specific conceptually, but if you want to talk in spahgetti gods and other nonsense as to the denial of this central truth, I will as always have fun. You cannot disprove my thesis, and the universe screams of certainty of truth in nature, math, and science.

2seaoat wrote:Again, this is your central fallacy.  You assume to understand what you do not understand, and think that our knowledge like my knowledge of the world is complete and your paradigm does not allow for the concept of that which cannot be empirically verified.

I actually have said the exact opposite several times.  I can only assume that you haven't actually read any of my posts.  Not only have I never said that our knowledge is complete, I said that our knowledge is extremely limited.  I said that we have barely scratched the surface of knowledge.  Here, I'll quote myself from the post that you didn't read.

boards of FL wrote:I have made no assumption that we have discovered everything about math, science, and nature.  In fact, I am certain that we have not.  We haven't even scratched the surface.  I am the one who is comfortable not knowing and conceding that our knowledge - as developed as it has become - is still incredibly limited.  You are the one who invents a place holder for not knowing.  The religious claim to know how the universe came to be.  I, on the other hand, do not. You're getting yourself and I confused here.  I have a reason to investigate how our universe came to be.  You, on the other hand, do not because you already know.  God did it.  People also used to see no need in investigating why the sun rises and sets.  Bill O'Reilly sees no need to investigate the reason for the changing tides because god did it.  Ancient civilizations felt no need to investigate why storms or natural disasters happen.  God did it.  And they felt that they must therefore do whatever they could (sacrifices, pray, etc) to appease that god so that they didn't bring any more evil upon themselves.  

This is known as a "god of the gaps" argument.  You're basically saying "There are things that we don't currently know about or understand, therefore, god."   If that is the argument that you want to make, you're basically saying that god is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance.  God used to cause the sun to rise and set.  God used to cause the tides to go in and out.  God used to cause death.  God used to cause the changing season.  Today, god isn't really needed to explain hardly anything outside of  "What happened before the big bang?"  That is the current hiding place for god.  In time, I suspect we won't need god for that explanation either.

2seaoat wrote:back to the incredibly vague stuff.

What is vague about absolute truth and perfection in a unitary system where God is the apex.   I think a person cannot get much more specific conceptually, but if you want to talk in spahgetti gods and other nonsense as to the denial of this central truth, I will as always have fun.  You cannot disprove my thesis, and the universe screams of certainty of truth in nature, math, and science.

You're obviously talking to yourself here as you're not responding to anything that I have said.  Instead, you're saying that I have claimed that we have perfect knowledge about everything and then you argue against that strawman.

People with strong arguments are generally able to directly respond rather than fabricate strawmen and then attack those.