Stump the Christian?

[Randy Carson]

If god has never interacted with the material world, then he never created it, never was Jesus, never performed miracles and never answers prayers. Is that the god you believe in?

Did I say that God has never interacted with the material world?

He created it, and became man, so yeah.

How does science test, measure and verify the immaterial?

[Esquilax]

Did I say that God has never interacted with the material world?  

He created it, and became man, so yeah.

How does science test, measure and verify the immaterial?

What you are describing above are not immaterial claims, they are very definitely material ones, concerning material things and the interaction of your god with materials that we can test.

Besides the blatant category error of your thinking, the other thing is that, once again, you can't shift the burden of proof and then demand everyone else prove you wrong: you have the burden of proof for the flat claim that science cannot test god, and it's one that you're simply ignoring.

[abaris]

He created it, and became man, so yeah.

And here we are right back at the trinity desaster which not even theologians can explain.

We don't have to explain anything about the immaterial, since it is, well immaterial and in the eye of the beholder. But it speaks volumes that you live by a paradoxon that can't be explained by anyone. Either there was no god for three days or the trinity is out of the window.

[Randy Carson]

Then why is it known as the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution?

If you don't understand a topic, might I suggest you do a little research before you speak so authoritatively on it?

I posted this link earlier in the thread, by the way. It's a bit funny really, watching so many theists talk about science while misunderstanding basic concepts of it.

I've never heard of the "theory of gravity"...but the Law of Gravity I know

---

You've never heard of it because you're ignorant of the topic you are talking about, and apparently have no interest in learning before you open your mouth.

In science, laws explain what, but theories explain how. Why is this so hard for you people? Did you flunk out of high school before your first few science lessons?

What you actually mean is the real "material" world.

You have no way of testing the real "immaterial", do you?

If god has never interacted with the material world, then he never created it, never was Jesus, never performed miracles and never answers prayers. Is that the god you believe in?

Can a theory be disproven?

How about a Law?

---

Did I say that God has never interacted with the material world?  

He created it, and became man, so yeah.

How does science test, measure and verify the immaterial?

What you are describing above are not immaterial claims, they are very definitely material ones, concerning material things and the interaction of your god with materials that we can test.

Besides the blatant category error of your thinking, the other thing is that, once again, you can't shift the burden of proof and then demand everyone else prove you wrong: you have the burden of proof for the flat claim that science cannot test god, and it's one that you're simply ignoring.

How would science test, measure and verify the immaterial?

If God is pure spirit, how would science know anything about him purely on the basis of scientific method?

---

He created it, and became man, so yeah.

And here we are right back at the trinity desaster which not even theologians can explain.

We don't have to explain anything about the immaterial, since it is, well immaterial and in the eye of the beholder. But it speaks volumes that you live by a paradoxon that can't be explained by anyone. Either there was no god for three days or the trinity is out of the window.

Jesus' body was in the tomb for three days before returning to life.

His spirit, like yours, is eternal.

[Esquilax]

Can a theory be disproven?

How about a Law?

Both can, though you're barking up the wrong tree because it's actually easier to disprove a law than it is a theory, owing to the former's nature as a declarative statement of cause and effect. For example, the law of universal gravitation could be disproven by the mere existence of a counter-example to the basic concept of the law, that is that objects of mass attract one another. Conversely, conflicting or unexpected data applied to gravitational theory will most often result in an expansion of the scope of said theory, or an alteration to its general principles. This has already happened numerous times, such as the introduction of general relativity. Scientific theories are far sturdier than laws.

---

How would science test, measure and verify the immaterial?

If God is pure spirit, how would science know anything about him purely on the basis of scientific method?

So I point out that you can't just assert something and then demand that we prove you wrong, and your response is to assert the same thing and demand that I prove you wrong?

Edited to add: Incidentally Randy, even if I were to accept your claim outright, that god cannot be tested and is unfalsifiable, the conclusion would not be that therefore there is no need to provide testable, falsifiable evidence for god. It would be that there is no good reason to believe in god. "Evidence is not possible," is not the same as "no evidence is needed." You are describing a failure state, not a special category where success is assumed.

[Randy Carson]

How would science test, measure and verify the immaterial?

If God is pure spirit, how would science know anything about him purely on the basis of scientific method?

So I point out that you can't just assert something and then demand that we prove you wrong, and your response is to assert the same thing and demand that I prove you wrong?

Edited to add: Incidentally Randy, even if I were to accept your claim outright, that god cannot be tested and is unfalsifiable, the conclusion would not be that therefore there is no need to provide testable, falsifiable evidence for god. It would be that there is no good reason to believe in god. "Evidence is not possible," is not the same as "no evidence is needed." You are describing a failure state, not a special category where success is assumed.

Is it possible that science is not the proper discipline for proving that God does or does not exist?

[Anomalocaris]

Of course it is possible.   Science is never the proper discipline for proving something exists which in fact does not exist.

[Esquilax]

Is it possible that science is not the proper discipline for proving that God does or does not exist?

Science is a discipline that is perfectly capable if proving that things exist, where those things interact with reality. You've claimed your god interacts with reality, therefore he is a cause, creating effects within the material world that are, themselves, testable and falsifiable.

More importantly, I'm going to need a hell of a lot more than a bare assertion that science can't test god. You've given one reason why, that is flatly false, and you've yet to give an example of a discipline that can prove that god exists; your priorities seem to be more focused on ensuring any field of study that doesn't detect your god is somehow ineligible from doing so anyway. All you're doing is playing keepaway with your god whenever there's a real concern that he just won't show up.

I suspect that if the scientific community were filled with religious apologists attempting to spin every finding toward the god conclusion, this conviction you have that science is unable to test god, would not ever come up in conversation.

[Ravenshire]

You really have no understanding of evolution, at all, do you?

He said that evolution theory claims all life came from nothing. Of course he has no clue.

[Ravenshire]

But you already said that evolution was fact so you can't possibly think it possible to change your position. Also, if evolution moves from "fact" to false, what might an atheists' position be as to how we got to life as we know it--without changing your worldview on its head. BTW, I did not conflate evolution with atheism, I said it would turn your worldview on its head.

Who the fuck told you about the "atheist worldview?!?" There's no such thing. Atheism is a stance on a single fucking issue, whether or not god(s) exists. There are atheists who disagree with evolution, that believe in an afterlife, ghosts, alien abduction, Illuminati conspiracies, etc... Get over this "atheist worldview" bullshit. It doesn't exist.

Most of us don't give a shit how we got here. It's being here and what we do with the time that matters. If evolution were disproved tomorrow, most of us would simply keep on keeping on. If the Genesis account were proven to be bullshit, I'll bet it would hit you much harder than that.