Science was invoked in this conversation as an opposite to religion, which, although incorrect, is often the dichotomy proposed in atheist vs. religion debates.  This point is relevant to the extent that, if god exists, there would never be an absolute way of confirming this through empirical inference.  This means that those of us who have had a direct experience with god naturally have one hell of a time trying to convince someone else of what we experienced, namely because it's impossible.  But, it is the nature of something that is absolutely knowable to be impossible to prove, and this is because absolute knowledge can only result from direct perception or observation.

I'm not contradicting myself.  Math proofs can be called proofs because they simply abide by math's rules.  The scientific method tries to infer abstract models from observable phenomenon, and this is where you lose the ability to say that you can prove anything because you cannot prove the infallibility of the model.  Most scientists assume that repeated testing of a model that yields consistent results constitute proof of this infallibility, but this is really just for practical utility.  It's not technically proof of anything, or at least we can't call it such, and that's why no good published scientific paper will ever claim that they have "absolute" findings, but rather "statistically significant" ones.

I can drop an apple from a building in Earth's atmosphere and I can test numerous times that its acceleration is 9.8 m/s^2.  I might then test this at a variety of locations and come up with the same result.  Then, someone will posit a theory, "The law of the universe is that g = 9.8 m/s^2" and this is inferred through your observations on Earth.  No matter who tests this theory on Earth in standard Earth atmosphere, they will not be able to prove you wrong.  But then, some guy goes up in a shuttle to the moon and they do one test - one single test, which shows that g on the moon is about 1/6 of g on earth.  That one single test now discredited your inference despite having possibly millions of cases that supported your initial claim.  With that one test, we have completely wiped out our initial inference and we need to create a new inference, "g on EARTH is 9.8 m/s^2".  Now, it's important to note that none of the math you might have done while calculating your observed phenomena is wrong.  In fact, the math is all perfectly correct.  But your assumption of how that math describes reality was wrong, and that is how the problem of induction is invoked.  We can never get around this problem empirically.

Phrased another way, the problem with induction essentially lies with the idea that you would have to already know what it is that you're looking for before you've found it.  Let's hypothetically assume that we're conducting an experiment with an interaction between variables x and y in hopes of finding an event z that implies 'proof' of god.  We let x and y interact and, in fact, z is the result!  So we throw up our hands and we say, "Look!  We found z!  This is proof of god!"  Well, that's sure funny that you already somehow knew what z is and what it looks like before you ever saw it.  In other words, this means that you "recognize" z when in fact you've never encountered z in your life until just now.  This is just another form of confirmation bias.

Science is like a courtroom - proof in science is equatable to "proof beyond a reasonable doubt," and so that's why you read in published studies things like "The findings show that a statistically significant correlation exists between x and y, p < .05" or something similar.  The problem of induction arises whenever you try to infer predictions from a set of observations.  If you see me eat breakfast at McDonald's for 30 straight mornings, this is not proof that I will eat breakfast at McDonald's on the 31st morning, nor is it even an indicator of likeliness that I will visit McDonald's on the 31st day.  With respect to things that we assume are laws such as the laws of gravity or entropy, the same thing applies.  And while some might say, "Well it's just simply obvious that gravity is a law, try jumping off a building if you aren't so sure of it."  Well, that's fine and dandy and I might not jump off a bridge, but to try to apply validity to inductive reasoning using your experiences as a means for that application only means that you're using inductive reasoning to give inductive reasoning validity!

Math and geometry are abstract, self-contained languages.  Math proofs and geometry proofs are called proofs because of this self-containment - in and of themselves, they are proof of the solutions they express.  However, when you take a math or geometry proof and try to pin it to something tangible in reality, then the problem of induction creeps up again.  You might consider some mathematical expression to constitute proof of some real-life occurrence (E.g. d = m/v), and this might seem true because your observations have aligned with that particular expression, but it's still inductive reasoning.

Can you "prove" the sun is a fiery ball?  Well, I have a close example that exemplifies what I'm saying...

Suppose you go outside and feel the warmth of the sun on your face.  You know it's warm, you can feel it.  You can touch your fingers to your face, feel the heat on it, and you say, "Wow, that's warm!"  And I say, "Warm, you say?  Prove it to me."So, you get out your spot thermometer and take a temperature reading of your face and you say, "Look, 102 degrees.  It's warm."  What you don't know is that I just got back from a stream room at the gym where the temperature was 140 degrees.  I say, "I don't know, seems pretty cool to me."  So, which is it?  Is it warm or hot?  We have some arbitrary piece of evidence (i.e. 102 degrees) and yet there is no possible way for you to prove to me that 102 is warm unless I had the same direct perception of that warmth as you did while feeling the warmth on your face.

Now, you might say, "But that's a relative example!  Warm and cool are relationally opposed - I proved to you that it was 102 degrees!  Well, I say that 102 degrees is relational!  102 degrees is relational to something that we, for example, defined to be 0 degrees, and if we had defined that other thing to be something other than 0 degrees, then the object you just measured at 102 degrees would be measured at some other figure.  Geometry is relational to math, and math and physics are relational to philosophy.

Inductive reasoning has been called "the glory of science and the downfall of philosophy."  Because philosophy is a self-contained system that is inherently entwined with logical expression, it is possible to form logical tautologies that are totally unbreakable.  But when philosophy branches into mathematics (abstract) and physics (physical) and you attempt to link the two, you automatically begin formulating assumptions that aren't present with a strict philosophical model, namely that mathematical models can always be applied to their physical analogues.

Edit:  Don't forget, ratio is the root word of rationale.

Dank, I had a dream that you returned to me the million dollars that I loaned to you in my other dream.  So, I want my million dollars.  I know it can happen because you did it in my dream.

There's no proof in science at all, either.  You can never say "prove" in science and be correct because of the problem of induction.  You can use inference to support a point, but not to prove it.  

However, there is proof/knowledge available through direct perception, and so those who say they had a "spiritual experience" of god or something similar, assuming they are not lying, actually had as much proof as you could spend all of eternity looking to find.

I suspect the time at which a person began investing in BTC would be a mediating factor affecting the outcome of the poll's results.

That's why we have the language of perception, a languge that is shared by everyone and one that carries with it no assumptions or inference.  Indeed, it's only through perception that something can be known or 'proven' absolutely.  Otherwise, the next best thing we can do is create a tautological model of reality based upon logic which is inherently entwined with the language of perception.

That's why I made a post explaining how there are higher and lower levels of logical syntax, and how people frequently mix varying levels of syntax in their arguments, thereby resulting in both confusion and misunderstanding.  I also provided an example illustrating how it is possible to bypass this problem.  I've spent (over) the 10 most recent years of my life heavily devoted to the subject, and I believe I have insight into the topic that others can benefit from.  Truth is not purely relative, but most people choose to believe it is because they don't have the logical skill set required to recognize when they're mixing their syntaxes.  When syntaxes are mixed without awareness, infinite regressions result along with seemingly unreconcilable paradoxes and an endless line of apparently valid counter arguments.

I personally have problems when people think that discussing the nature of our existence should be avoided as if it should be regarded as taboo or reserved for the elephant in the room.  Absolute truth can be established, and by definition absolute truth takes precedence over everything else.  But if you'd like this can be a discussion about cat memes or something equally trivial.

How about I show you a proof that the boundary of a boundary = 0 and so we can see how words like inside and outside slide down the rabbit hole awfully quick?

I hope you realize that the reality you stare at is an output of processed information.  In other words, when you try to study the outside world, you're really studying the results of an internal process.

I prefer a different approach...

First off, anything that is not capable of being perceived is of total irrelevance.  The old question "If a tree falls in the forest and nobody is around to hear it, did it actually fall?" can be answered with simply, "Stop asking a ridiculous question!"  When people talk about parallel or infinite universes, they trod down the same path.  To make things simple, we can simply refer to the largest set of observable phenomena as the 'Real Universe', for if there were something real enough outside of this universe so as to be considered real, then it would be in the Real Universe!

Now, since we have defined the largest set or system of observable phenomenon, talking about the "Most High", as you put it, can be done by describing the syntax governing this largest set.  The challenge, of course, is avoiding slipping into an infinite regression, a 'tower of turtles,' in which every description leads to a logical contradiction.  This can be avoided by understanding how logic actually works, and to demonstrate, I will use the physical dimensions of space and time to show that logic itself has higher and lower dimensions.

We all know that 0-dimensions is represented by a point, 1-dimension by a line, 2-dimensions by a plane, and so on.  Or, phrased another way, the first dimension represents an ininite number of configurations of zero-dimensional space, the 2nd dimension represents an infinite number of configurations of 1-dimensional space, and so on.  Understanding lower dimensions is easy because we inhabit a level of syntax that is higher than the lower dimensions.  But how can we talk about higher dimensions and gain understanding about them?  Well, as it turns out we need to simply 'pretend' that we inhabit a higher level syntax and we need to thrust higher syntaxes below us.  This might sound confusing, but ill give you a simple example.

When I draw a tesseract on a piece of paper, I gain an understanding of 4-dimensional spacetime by thrusting it first into the 2nd dimension.  Logic operates in the same way, and aside from straw man fallacies, some of the most common errors in logic are made when arguments contain elements from multiple levels of logical syntax.  To put it simply, there are an infinite number of syntax levels, but we can begin to form an accurate model of reality by thrusting all of those infinite levels below us.  What this does is remove all of the constraints caused by higher levels of syntax - that is, the things we can never fully understand.  Then we can look at the universe from above, like our 3-dimensional selves looking at a 2-dimensional plane and understanding it's basic structure.  What results is something like a tesseract, the most perfect representation of 4-dimensions that we can observe from the 3rd dimension.

Semantic fun...

To not know is to doubt. To know is to not doubt.  To doubt is to not have faith.  To not doubt is to have faith.  To not know is to not have faith.  To know is to have faith.

Also...

What one can prove he cannot know.  What one knows he cannot prove.  Scientists really need to understand the importance of this statement.

Do you believe in pure determinism, by the way?

If so, consider this:  A free entity would be free to place its own constraints.

A religion is a type of belief system.  Christianity, for example, is often referred to as a belief with zero evidence, aka a faith-based religion.  Buddism, for example, is often practiced as a belief system based upon evidence.  Science is similar to Buddhism to that extent.  I think you categorize religions as special because they all have a certain social flavor that's so strong you can taste it.  But still, not even all religions incorporating some belief in a deity are the same.  Polytheistic gods are significantly different from monotheistic ones and bring to the table different assumptions.  Science has its own assumptions.  Observation has zero assumptions.

This sentence doesn't do much good, and it dismisses the fact that language CAN, in fact, provide a totally accurate (though abstract) model of reality.  You might as well be saying that the interpretation of data in science is as subjective as the words used to describe them.  Everybody is looking for the same thing - truth.  And, some call that truth different things, which is OK.  What matters is if someone's definition of truth is tautologically correct and thus a mirror of absolute truth itself.  Reality, like logic, is self-contained, for if there were something real enough (or logical enough) outside of reality (or logic) to be described as such, then it would still be included within reality (or logic).  Truthful models can exist, and there can be multiple truthful models if all of the variables are analogous to those contained in another model.

But, the most important thing to note is that the mere existence of absolute truth is actually ridiculously easy to establish, because any attempts to deny its existence only reinforces its existence.  The same can be said for a totally accurate model of absolute truth - any attempts to disprove it will only reinforce it.

Suppose you say, "All truth is relative."  Then you are actually saying, "It is the absolute truth that all truth is relative."  If you say, "There is no absolute truth," then you are really saying, "It is the absolute truth that there is no absolute truth."  If you say, "There is more than one absolute truth," you are saying, "It is the one absolute truth that there are more than one absolute truths."

A perfect model of reality functions the same way.  Religions are attempts to construct such models.

Lol.

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what you mean.  I think the wording is off? I'm trying to figure out how a belief has the capacity to express its mind.  I think you meant the individual has the capacity to do so, but not sure what you mean by "disrupt all others."

Technology is inseparable from the human mind.  Technology is one way the mind expresses itself in order to be enhanced.

Yes and no.  This assumption is a byproduct of a memory of a direct experience of absolute truth.  So the assumption is that my memory is valid to the extent that my recollection of the experience is accurate, but the experience itself contained no assumptions.  

Fortunately, the method by which the experience was realized is replicable, so I can always refresh my memory.

...because god isn't a magic guy in the sky.  If you set god=truth then theists and atheists can search for truth together.  Hint: absolute truth is directly knowable.