The "Biblical method" is based upon the claims found in the Bible and not evidence... The Bible then uses the power of fear and ignorance to conform people to it's indoctrination.

Those who "claim" they have "found God" have absolutely zero repeatable tests to verify their claims, ergo their claims can be discarded with equally as much evidence.

God can actually resolve this debate entirely, right now, permanently, if he existed.

It's actually a good thing that science gets things wrong, makes mistakes. That is the entire point of the scientific method.
It doesn't assert anything as 100% factual, ever. It is capable of changing it's views.

All things we enjoy in the modern era, advanced medicines, communications, efficient transport, even the yields we get from crops... Is all thanks to the scientific method.

The Scientific method has even allowed us to explore the stars.

What has religion done? Flown planes into buildings? Abused children? Attack the LGBTQI community endlessly? Recruited child soldiers?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church_sexual_abuse_cases
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord%27s_Resistance_Army

For God to be "all knowing and eternal", God needs to actually exist... And for the existence to be proven, you need a thing called evidence.

Fact of the matter is there are thousands of Christian denominations... If the Christians cannot even agree on all the rubbish found in the Bible, then why should anyone else take it seriously?

Not to mention all through history there have been thousands of religions/gods... And they all claim the same old bullshit that is found in the Bible, that their God is the only God, that their God is the true God...

I mean, Muslims, Jewish and Christians technically worship the same "god". - The Abrahamic God, how does that make you feel knowing you are painted with the same brush as those religious sects? How do you know that your position is the correct one and theirs the incorrect one?

If you want to end your life, you have a mental illness or are suffering from such intense physical pain that Euthanasia is an option, either way, it's brought on by an illness.
I work in multiple rescue agencies, I've seen it all. I am trained in dealing with Mental health.

The Bible is the claim, not evidence.

As for things in science not being proven... Well. Until it is proven, those claims can be discarded, same goes for religion, science isn't rigid, it doesn't assert ANYTHING as fact until it has the evidence to support it's theory.

Worshippers have been given 6,000+ years to prove their religion and God exists and have failed to do so, how much time do you want?

Where do we draw the line?

How do you know the flying spaghetti monster isn't real? The tooth fairy even?

Yes the P.M could have done a better job, by not sending thoughts and prayers and actually doing the job he is employed to do... That is support the country by direct means, not touchy-feely feel-good religious propaganda.

...an indescribable amount of nonsense...

Faith is not a path we use to get tot he truth in any other area of life.  There is no reason to ignore the methods we use to come to sound conclusions in other areas of life when it comes to religion.  

As for the doctor, he is subject to human limitations.  He has a right to and a need for personal satisfaction outside his work, he has to deal with physical and mental exhaustion, he has responsibilities outside work, etc.  Knowing what we do about humans, it would be unreasonable to expect him to work to his absolute maximum capacity.

God, assuming the typical definition, on the other hand is not subject to any such limitations, and being omnipotent, can cure all of the patients with no ill effects to himself, and can do so with 100% reliability.  

Simply put, if you could snap your finger and eliminate all childhood cancer, would you?  I'm assuming yes.  So, is god incapable of eliminating all childhood cancer, or is he capable of doing so, but chooses not to?  Those are the only possibilities.  

After my previous encounters with you, why am I not surprised to see you're skeptical of science and in support of religion? 

What is this, the regressive trifecta here? anti-science, republican, religious. The holy trinity of [redacted]. 

After seeing your posts in the US Politics thread, it's clear you like to debate (A lot, at great expense of your personal time) despite being utterly trash at it. Your points hold no value, your stance has no support, your arguments are fundamentally flawed, and based on everything I've read from you in various other threads, I am 100% certain that no amount of counter-pointing out your leaps in logic and hilariously flawed tactics would make you even consider that you're wrong. You're so far away from truth that arguing with you would make me look bad simply because I refuse to treat your points with respect due to the fact that they're so outlandishly removed from reality that they function as their own parody of themselves and thus arguing with them gives them power and Creedence they don't deserve. 

Honestly, don't even bother responding to me because I'll read your answer once, slowly shake my head, and mentally envision the 10,000 word essay I'd need to write to explain every minute detail of your point and why it's wrong, how it's wrong, when the misconception started, how the falsehood was perpetuated, and whether or not you can be cured of your ignorance. It's actually painful skimming your posts because you consistently miss every point, refuse to use logic or science or rationality in your debate, and hold some pretty nasty opinions. It hurts to see that someone with the intelligence needed to operate a computer is somehow stuck in a time and place when your outdated, archaic views are still upheld, a time long in the past that needs to be relegated to history. 

**Edit so there's no confusion** 

Yes I hate religion. I believe that, at its core, it's a fundamentally broken belief system and that faith is damaging to the human psyche when it's replacing logic and reason. There are people who do good with it, there are those who behave morally and rationally even when under the influence of religion, but too often I see people using 'god' as an excuse to get away with shitty behaviour, faulty beliefs, a disrespect of science, and a backwards outlook on life. It irks me even more knowing that for some reason it's considered not cool or taboo or disrespectful to ream into religion for the sham that it is. Religion is the pyramid scheme of thought processed, the homeopathy of spirituality. It's fake, it's nonsense, and I won't pretend that it deserves any more respect than the scam it is. Religion is a mental disease, one of delusion and a self-removal from reality that should be treated with compassion and diligence in order to fix it, not encouraged by years of tradition and perpetuated on the global scale. 

Good riddance to the whole concept. ESPECIALLY when it is put at odds with science. 

Do we always use science? Do we use science at times even without being aware of it? What else might we not be aware of when consciously operating? Can something be said that's not factually correct, yet have deeper meaning beyond the obvious?

Where do the doctors rights come from? Why can't another human remove those rights?

God could also wipe everything out and restart since this universe clearly sucks as per our opinion. They could also reboot us all in the new one where nobody has to even think because it's self automated and perfect. Would that be better?

Every human would make changes, and create entirely unique universes. Which would be perfect and free from negativity? A universe with only positivity? Scientifically that doesn't work. God technically can if everything written and taught is true to the word. Is it though is the question? Some old science eventually get's proven, or get's modified based on new findings. Time is important when it comes to truth.

Uhhhhhh... what?  None of this is remotely responsive to the point I made. I didn't mention anything about science, and have no idea what removing a doctor's rights has to do with anything.  I did not assert this universe clearly sucks, and was incredibly careful to limit the conversation to negatives that are unrelated to free will. 

 I'm sorry, I really have no idea what you're saying, and you're spinning the conversation in ten different directions with ten different questions.  If you want to try and focus on the key point you want to make, and maybe ask one or two clarifying questions, then I'm game, but I can't respond to this in a concise way.

You talked about getting to truth. Science is something that does that. It's just an example.

You mentioned the doctor's rights, as to why it was ok for them to choose not to do something.

You pointed out what God could do, because of the negatives that you or people don't seem to like. I took it further.