It's impossible to prove the non-existence of anything. That's very poor evidence for the existence of that thing.

While people joke about a flying spaghetti monster, you can't prove it doesn't exist and it's just as likely as your god.

I think the logic skills of any science or religious scholar has to be taken with a grain of salt as their survival and replication in heavily dependent upon the notion that their work will add value/fall in line with the logic of their employer. If I am a faculty member in the department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology at Brown University then my job is to educate people on Evolutionary Biology regardless of what I may have come to discover/believe in my personal life. Heck I could lose my position for stepping too far out of line with the thinking of the rest of the faculty. I saw this a lot in all of my undergrad and graduate studies. I don't believe their are many people in the world more in tune with using logic then modern high stakes poker players. There is far less room for logical error in their profession.

no

if a mathematician makes a logical error, it renders whatever he was doing completely irrelevant

poker players can make mistakes and still win

they can also make correct moves for the wrong reasons

poker players' decision making needs to be reasonably close to correct but is always based on limited information and it's correctness is more heuristic than logically rigorous

I would agree with you on a mathmatician lol, but that hardly classifies many. There are different aspects of logic. I think that inductive logic and inductive reasoning best represent the logic of scientists trying to decipher what happened thousands or millions of years ago, and also best represents the logic a poker player uses. Based on my experience in life poker players seem to be some of the best at this type of logical analysis.

You said their theories are obviously illogical. And I can turn your survival theory on its head by noting that since thousands of scientists are looking at these theories it would be a much bigger personal feather in their cap to show the logical error in a well accepted theory than to just go along with the crowd. The fact that this hasn't happened almost certainly means that, true or false, the theories don't contain fallacies,

I don't know that i said they are obviously illogical, but just that they must be taken with a grain of salt. Almost everyone works for somebody and not everybody will see their opposing stance as a feather. There work might not even hit the press if the editor doesn't see fit, and I'm referring to both sides of the scholarly world. But I think we both may be right a bit. My question for you is: do you believe there to be less brilliant minds on the religious side of the research?

"The idea that things evolved into this beautiful earth from nothing has no foundation, theory, physics, science to back it up. No theories are even remotely logical"

Yes anyone believing it came from nothing. Seems like a cop out answer. I don't see any signs of that logic in nature.

So we are back where we started.

The idea of something coming from nothing seems flawed to me, but I don't see any reason to believe that there has ever been nothing.

Ok...
I can give good reasons why i dont think the fsm exists and give evidence. Good evidence or not ymmv. The reason and evidence is that someone made it up as a tool for theological debate. Look at wiki for cite.

Afaik i have no God.

I couldn't disagree more with your lame, faulty analogy.

The OP (original post) was meant to elicit discussion, and shine the light on people like you that would chime in with priggish comments like the "lazy" quote above. Any questions?

It's lazy in that he just posted a link with no words of his own about the link. I maintain my opinion: laziest kind of OP there is.

I'm sure your panties would be in just as much of a wad if an atheist
posted a link to an article about prominent theists converting to atheism, correct?

Are you just dense? My comment about the OP being a lazy post has absolutely nothing to do with the content. I'm simply referring to the practice of posting a link without adding asst last some sort of synopsis.

What evidence is there that demonstrates god was not created in the same respect?

Your background is in physics right? You should read Krauss's A Universe From Nothing

The bible and people who who wrote it is evidence. Whether good or not ymmv.

If thats the God you are talking about.

The bible is as much 'evidence' as is every creation story for every god ever. Seems like a lot of evidence for a lot of gods

Yup.

Id say believers are too. Just very weak.

Writing a synopsis seems more forthright.

When I see people dropping articles with no personal comment, I'm always suspicious they merely do it so they can jump onto any ensuing argument they have a beef with.

Or they just lack independent critical thinking skills

Feel like its a dangerous growing theme among social media users

And by dangerous i mean collectively society is getting dumber

Society isn't getting any dumber, social media just made it more apparent.