Disregard, JoC. Jared showed me the way. (Pardon the pun.)

So, the request by JoC to use scientific method to prove scientific method is the best way to find facts has been rattling around in my metal-encased little brain like a demented pinball all night. (And let me tell ya, that *ping* sound it makes every time it ricochets off the inner walls can get downright annoying.) But I digress. Anyway, somebody please correct me if I'm wrong, but seems to me that is like asking to use math to prove that using math is the best way to do calculations. Or, maybe, having a criminal be the judge and jury of his own trial. Granted, no analogy is perfect, but I am comfortable with those two being fairly accurate. The thing is, we have what we know as the scientific method simply because it is what we know to reliably work. It has been developed and refined over centuries of time, and will likely continue to be improved upon for centuries to come. As Mykcob4 mentioned, it may not be the ONLY way, but it is certainly the best method we have at our disposal for now. Certainly one can argue there are many things science is unable to explain..... (for now). But the beauty of science is that it evolves. It advances. The best part, however, is that it is honest with and about itself. It always seeks the truth, and is not afraid to admit when it gets something wrong. It admits it limitations, yet constantly strives to improve itself to overcome those limitations. Is it perfect? Absolutely not. But until something better comes along, it is the best thing we have, and so far - in my personal opinion - it has done a fantastic job of bringing us out of the Dark Ages. After all, we are currently having this discussion over the internet using computers, right?

Yeah, it was the Scarecrow who went for the brain. Don't tell anybody, though, but after the Wizard dished out all the prizes, I convinced the Scarecrow to flip a coin for his brain. Bad mistake on my part. Turns out the wise-ass was a genius at calculating probabilities, because (you guessed it) he already had the brain. But I just KNEW in my heart I could win. Guess that's what I get for thinking with my heart.

I think that JoC has actually missed the point by a long mile.
The Scientific Method is the only method that is purely objective to finding and verifying facts.
All other methods are purely subjective.
However other methods often and usually use the scientific method to verify facts that they discover.
Take law. A person's DNA is tested scientifically to verify whose it is.
Religion does not do this. Actually, religion is so subjective that it uses pseudo-science to fit a narrative.
But take any HONEST method of verifying and or discovering facts. The facts lead them to the conclusion.
With religion, however, the conclusion dictates how the facts are presented even altered.
For example, Religion wants it to be a fact that christ resurrected. There is no historical record, independent record or scientific evidence that that ever happened, but if you believe christians they turn to second-hand eyewitness accounts that are only found in edited versions of the bible as conclusive evidence. In fact, they altered the narrative to fit the conclusion that they wanted. The oldest accounts of the discovery of the tomb have no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected jesus.

you have to read the new testament again you are ignorant of alot; Paul got the word from peter and james when he went to Jerusalem That`s why we have 4 gospels because what is not covered in one is eventually found in the others. We have more transcripts of the new testament then the later achievers do. The new testament creeds go way back.

No offense, D.C., but I am having trouble determining if you are being sincere or if you are just one of those folks who exaggerates stuff just for the hell of it and for the sake of being annoying. How is atheism a "vice"??? To the best of my understanding, atheism really isn't ANYTHING. It is merely a convenient term used to refer to those who do not believe in a god. I do not believe in the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, or little green men from Mars, either. Does that make my non-belief in them a vice, too? And as I stated earlier, if a person is going to pick and choose ONLY those things he/she likes from the bible (that is supposedly THE holy book inspired and dictated by God Himself), then is that not hypocrisy to the Nth degree? If that is the case, then why not simply toss the bible away and write your own to follow, because that is basically what you are doing anyway. I'm not trying to be an ass, but your reasoning and arguments make very little sense if you are here to try to convince folks you are right.
One little thing you said did strike me as a bit disturbing, by the way. When Sapporo made the remark about torture being a good reason for opposition to Christianity, you agreed it is. However, you immediately followed that by claiming you do not follow that part of the bible (or something to that affect). And you went on to say that you follow the commands of Jesus to worship and love God with all your heart and soul. Uh, I hate to be the one to state the obvious here, but - unless I am mistaken - I am pretty sure that would be the same God who actually CONDONES and orders slaughter, rape, torture, slavery, and various other horrendous acts. Yet you still praise and worship him? Am I the only one who sees the irony and the problem with this?
Also, as a side note, I'm afraid you cannot use the bible to prove the bible is true. It is likely you have already heard this before, but just wanted to throw that out there just in case.

https://youtu.be/dNQmDwpF8tc

Anybody here ever read "Starship Troopers" by Robert A. Heinlein? And don't say you watched the movie, because the movie and book are pretty much polar opposites. I saw the movie before I ever even knew there was a book. The movie was fun and action-packed and had great special effects. I recommend it for the sci-fi buffs out there. But I digress. So, Heinlein is basically a sociologic genius. (Personal opinion) Although his genera is primarily sci-fi, that is really just the medium he uses to relay his message to the readers. In particular in Starship Troopers, he touches a great deal on morals and how societies function. Specifically in chapter eight he provides a most compelling demostration of crime and punishment that is incredibly difficult to refute. I strongly recommend that book to anybody who values logic and reason. Plus, the book is an amazingly fun read. The story is great, and - I confess - it is especially interesting to me because of my military background. (If you read the book you will understand.)
I guess my point is, maybe I see things in a more direct and simple manner. (My wife always tells me I am much more tactical than I am strategic.) When dealing with science (I'm something of a science nerd.), logic (LOVE math), philosophy, psychology, sociology, and so forth, it has never been that difficult for me to keep them in order in my brain. They all fascinate me in their own way, and I often understand each one intuitively (and maybe intrinsically), even if I may not always be able to accurately articulate why. Relating to this debate, I can't help but notice the apparent confusion folks seem to have regarding philosophy and morals being subjective or objective. More to the point, I have trouble with WHY there is confusion. Seems fairly straightforward to me, to be honest. Each is subjective, based (obviously) on individuals, societies, cultures, and circumstances. Yes, philosophy gives us some marvelous insights into human nature and to Mankind as a whole. I truly enjoy a good philosophical discussion. Yet it does not provide any concrete truths, such as science does. It is highly subjective. And morals are most definitely subjective, regardless of one's faith, religion, or lack thereof. Keep in mind, I am talking only about humans. All that talk about comparing human morals/ethics to those of animals just seems a bit odd to me. On one hand, I think I see the point that is trying to be made. On the other hand, however, it seems about the same as discussing the difference between the morals/ethics of an insect compared to those of a fern. Fascinating discussion, I'm sure, but what's the point?