What's the lamest defence of Theism you've ever heard?

[Jello]

There is nothing scientific about some magic man in the sky "poof"-ing life into existence.

Would it be magic if I went into the lab and added amino acids together in a desired sequence to get a protein? Why do you assume the designer just poofed it into existence? And nobody said the designer resides in the sky.

Because that's literally how i've had christians eexplain it. He "created life" instantly, as far as i was always told, which is a load of bull. And about most christians i've ran into tend to think he resides in the sky.

Is it possible to prove he is real? No. The fact that it is impossible to actually find this "god" kinda says something about his existence, not gonna lie.

[abaris]

Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?

You really go there? After claiming to love science? In which case you should at least be aware of how you observe what you call unobservable.

[AAA]

Would it be magic if I went into the lab and added amino acids together in a desired sequence to get a protein? Why do you assume the designer just poofed it into existence? And nobody said the designer resides in the sky.

Because that's literally how i've had christians eexplain it. He "created life" instantly, as far as i was always told, which is a load of bull. And about most christians i've ran into tend to think he resides in the sky.

Is it possible to prove he is real? No. The fact that it is impossible to actually find this "god" kinda says something about his existence, not gonna lie.

Personally I think He resides in a different spatial dimension, but that's just conjecture. 

Well is it possible to prove anything outside of mathematics? And who knows why He doesn't reveal himself more obviously. Maybe it's all just some grand psychology experiment to observe how we reason and how we come to the conclusions that we do and how we interact with new information after we have our presuppositions.

[AAA]

Ok then how would you investigate the unobservable past?

You really go there? After claiming to love science? In which case you should at least be aware of how you observe what you call unobservable.

If you follow the conversation leading up to that point, I laid out a way to investigate the unobservable past, but stimbo kept saying that it wasn't science unless it could be done in a lab. I agree that you can investigate the unobservable past scientifically, I just wanted to see if he could answer it in a way that simultaneously rendered intelligent design unscientific while still permitting materialistic explanations scientific. I think they are both scientific. But not empirical, and by definition not repeatable.

[TheRocketSurgeon]

You really go there? After claiming to love science? In which case you should at least be aware of how you observe what you call unobservable.

If you follow the conversation leading up to that point, I laid out a way to investigate the unobservable past, but stimbo kept saying that it wasn't science unless it could be done in a lab. I agree that you can investigate the unobservable past scientifically, I just wanted to see if he could answer it in a way that simultaneously rendered intelligent design unscientific while still permitting materialistic explanations scientific. I think they are both scientific. But not empirical, and by definition not repeatable.

It doesn't literally mean a lab; it means that whatever hypothesis you develop (like these just-so stories of God-power at work, sans any form of explanative power of what that is, how it operates exactly, or in what ways it even interacts with our universe, if this God-power even exists, you must do experiments which measure the predictions you are making, and they must be reproducible by all your peers to see what you might have missed in narrowing down your results and/or conclusions.

Intelligent Design is not science. Again, as I have mentioned before, read the Kitzmiller case. In order for ID/IC to be considered a scientific theory, as the ID/IC people were attempting to do in court under oath, they admitted that based on the definition they gave, astronomy and voodoo might be included within the scope of that definition. We are unprepared to "expand" the definition or practice of science to people who cannot actually practice science.

To do so would be to endanger our future as a culture extant upon this earth, I fear.

[AAA]

If you follow the conversation leading up to that point, I laid out a way to investigate the unobservable past, but stimbo kept saying that it wasn't science unless it could be done in a lab. I agree that you can investigate the unobservable past scientifically, I just wanted to see if he could answer it in a way that simultaneously rendered intelligent design unscientific while still permitting materialistic explanations scientific. I think they are both scientific. But not empirical, and by definition not repeatable.

It doesn't literally mean a lab; it means that whatever hypothesis you develop (like these just-so stories of God-power at work, sans any form of explanative power of what that is, how it operates exactly, or in what ways it even interacts with our universe, if this God-power even exists, you must do experiments which measure the predictions you are making, and they must be reproducible by all your peers to see what you might have missed in narrowing down your results and/or conclusions.

Intelligent Design is not science. Again, as I have mentioned before, read the Kitzmiller case. In order for ID/IC to be considered a scientific theory, as the ID/IC people were attempting to do in court under oath, they admitted that based on the definition they gave, astronomy and voodoo might be included within the scope of that definition. We are unprepared to "expand" the definition or practice of science to people who cannot actually practice science.

To do so would be to endanger our future as a culture extant upon this earth, I fear.

You may not be able to actually study God scientifically, but we can test to see if there was likely an action of a designer at a point in history. Again, I'm not trying to prove that God exists, I am just trying to propose that we can examine natural phenomena to see if a purposeful designer ever played a role. And I still want to hear a definition of science that simultaneously excludes intelligent design as scientific, while permitting materialistic explanations for the origin of life to be considered scientific. 

And don't say that they cannot actually practice science, because the fact is that it is the people who look at the evidence differently who are the ones who advance science. We don't need to discourage people from questioning the standard scientific ideas, when this is exactly what will help us gain new perspective. Unless you think we currently are correct in everything that we think we know in modern science.

[robvalue]

I tried debating you before AAA and I found it to be a waste of time. I gave you a fair shot like I give everyone. You don't know how science works.

At least be honest enough to admit that your Christian beliefs are not scientific. Once you've done that, ask yourself if the required presupposition that not just a creator but a magical creator was involved is clouding your scientific judgement. Of course you think there is a creator; you have to.

If you can't produce something that can actually be tested and is falsifiable, it's not science. It's speculation. At best your methods here are more akin to a soft science like the study of history. It is not biological or physical science.

What would life that wasn't designed be like, and how do you know this? If you can't answer that, all you have is an unfalsifiable assumption that life is designed just because it's life.

If you really are a science student, have you discussed any of this with your tutors?

I don't expect an answer, I'm writing this for the benefit of other readers.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

There is nothing scientific about some magic man in the sky "poof"-ing life into existence.

Would it be magic if I went into the lab and added amino acids together in a desired sequence to get a protein? Why do you assume the designer just poofed it into existence? And nobody said the designer resides in the sky.

None of this matters, and what does is that you are no scientist. You've told us a lot about us through the attitudes you express, and your argument patterns. To you, everything you ever learned about science, if you really learned anything at all has been for the express purpose of attempting to discredit the overwhelming majority of the world's scientists who disagree with your ideas which are for the best of reasons not considered to be the least bit scientific - they are fantasy! Man, that just hurts, don't it - you so mad!!! When you cannot prove the fantasy, then you attack the science which threatens it merely by existing, and you attack the people who work with it. You cast doubt on the work of other people, and you contribute nothing, absolutely nothing of substance to the conversation. This is what "God's people" are like, which is why, more than 10 years ago, I said he can keep them.

There is in all likelihood no god directing this universe, but there are beyond any shadow of a doubt people who want to be our god by exploiting the power of salient ideas, so that they can wield it over others. Just keep on trying, Champ - I really enjoy watching you bang your head bloody.

[robvalue]

There are two big underlying problems with "intelligent design":

1) Science models reality. Intelligent design is not a model. No models are ever put forward to be tested, therefor it is not a scientific hypothesis and can never become a theory.

2) It operates under the false dichotomy that the only explanations are the theory of evolution and intelligent design.

Just to be clear: I'm not claiming there was no designer. I'm saying there's no evidence that there actually was. Problems with the theory of evolution are not evidence of design, neither are appeals to probability or complexity. You need to put forward your own model, or else you're not doing science.

[Pat Mustard]

And so far, my academic career hasn't been hindered by my views.

And yet a few months ago you were shouting about a scientific conspiracy to supress evidence for creatardism, going so far as to lie about a scientist supposedly being blaclisted for daring ot print the evidence. When we comprehensively demonstrated that lie you ran away from here until your recent flurry of misinformation.