You cannot say what we haven't seen.
“Actually, I can. That whole gift of a brain thing. . .” [excerpt]
Well, if you were my other personality, then you could.
But since you are not, you have no way to know what I have or haven't seen.
Unfortunately that hasn't stopped you from making one logical blunder after another.
“I haven't made any.
Following the facts lends itself to that kind of error-free existence.” [excerpt]
One of your primary errors is in believing that you have not made any.
“Another silly trap type question.
I believe that people's minds are inherently more open in the absence of religion and, therefore, scientific advancement is far more likely.” [excerpt]
But religion does not hinder scientific advancement?
“It's possible they did self-create in some sense, but not as you imply.
Regardless there is a reasoned, scientifically provable/acceptable explanation for them out there waiting to be discovered.
Neither God* nor the Flying Spaghetti Monster had anything to do with it.” [excerpt]
But you cannot prove that.
“Untrue. Naturalistic explanations exist because laws exist but the specific configuration of those is irrelevant. If we find more or different laws then science will adapt.” [excerpt]
What if you find the laws of God?
“Known being the operative word. Nobody is willing to say that we know all that is knowable.” [excerpt]
Does this apply to God as well?
“The difference between you and I is that you're willing to say "let's stop seeking and explain the rest as God*"” [excerpt]
You are a lousy mind reader/prophet.
And your pants are on fire.
“Funny. Stupid, but funny.” [excerpt]
Well, you act like a prophet, so what other conclusion do you expect me to come to?
“Religion interferes with intelligence and reason and should be disallowed period.” [excerpt, bold emphasis mine]
Thats tageline material...
“We should never pollute our minds with known drivel.” [excerpt]
Naturalism is known drivel.
BTW, you didn't answer my question about Popper.