Irrelevant -- you are the one applying Popper's doctrine to the question of the existence of God, although at one point I seem to remember you dismissed him as "pseudo-science." As I said, your argument is a Frankenstein's creature of philosophical tidbits from different schools of thought given a semblance of coherence by vigorous gaslighting. You keep dropping the names of famous philosophers, but you don't seem to be able to cogently apply their thinking.
Both my post and the one to which I was responding are defensible summaries of Popper regardless of whether Popper expresses current thinking. You have misunderstood and misrepresented Popper on a number of occasions, and you seem to think this cannot be detected by your critics. In responding to our corrections, you've pivoted away from whether you understand Popper and his ilk to whether the doctrines we're talking about are the current thinking. And then you simply use that to drop further names and further insinuate that your critics are not as smart or well-read as you are.
This is mere posturing, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the proof for the existence of God that you're supposed to be presenting and defending. It seems all your precious time here at the forum is spent nit-picking at irrelevant items you perceive to be grave errors on your critics' part instead of staying on topic. Every time you think you've caught someone in an error, you accuse them of ignorance and/or declare victory. That behavior is not consistent with honest arguments in favor of your proof. It's more consistent with the personalized modus operandi you assure us you have eschewed since Digg.
