Debate: God Exists

[masterofpuppets]

Science is limited to the physical world because it is based on observations (i.e. data that can be collected, interpreted and used) that have so far been limited to the natural world. Nothing has been demonstrated to exist beyond the physical world, by science or otherwise. To make claims beyond that despite the fact that the supernatural has not been demonstrated is fallacious and is merely an act of knowledge gap-filling. A rational, logical thinker does not become convinced in supernatural claims because they are beyond the scope of our investigative abilities, and recognising one's own gaps in knowledge is imperative for success in scientific fields.

It's like you guys were all copies of the same bad arguement. Think about what you just said about the supernatural... left click and highlight it, it now delete it. Why? Let's say for a moment God Created the Natural universe. (rather than a one he is mandated to move supernaturally through)So then why would we then only look for Him supernaturally? Not to say God can't work supernaturally, but why create something that you have to work around just to get done what you set out to accomplish? Why not create something that works with you rather than against?

So then why does the bible only record these supernatural events? To anyone witnessing the use of nature or technology to further that person's or being will, would that not be a supernatural event? Especially if the witness did not understand how nature or technology was used?

Now lets look at the supernatural even itself. Once we have a base understanding of the supernatural, can't it then be classified as natural? isn't that what science does? So then why the pomp and pageantry in proclaiming no supernatural events have ever been recorded? are you to foolish to understand that once they have been recorded they cease being supernatural?

The aim of science is not to seek the "right" answer, it's to account for the data with models that have the greatest explanatory and predictive power.

I full understand the 'aim' and as above I mock it when someone compares the aim/efforts against truth. Especially truth made available to the individual, and yet the individual prefers to seek out the Aim of 'science.'

We can make predictions about what can be and likely is beyond the observations we have made so far, and none of these predictions point to the supernatural. This isn't because science outright dismisses the supernatural, but rather because we are limited to exploring natural phenomena and nothing supernatural has been shown to exist.

Glob..

Your moon analogy is puerile but not even slightly confusing.

It is the "puerile" that often times makes fools of the wise and learned.

Or rather "if one does not know enough about a subject to explain it simply, 'he' does not truly understand the subject being discussed."

You still haven't provided evidence for God, miracles, prayers and all the other ridiculous claims postulated by your religion. It seems like you wrote your rebuttal as a vain attempt to distract the discussion from the real issue here.

Also, I was using the term "supernatural" to mean anything that exists beyond the physical Universe (i.e. the natural world). Of course I understand that all phenomena that has some kind of manifestation the Universe is indeed natural. It is the theistic claim that some natural phenomena have some sort of supernatural attribution (e.g. prayer) that I reject.