Stump the Christian?

[FatAndFaithless]

So....you're..agreeing that the existence of God can't be tested and is unfalsifiable?

[SteveII]

I'm talking about scientific falsifiability, dingus.  Your god-claims cannot be tested.  You have no way of confirming them outside of personal feelings and experiences.  It's unreasonable to accept your conclusion.

If you are talking about historical evidence for the events in the NT, why are you talking about scientific falsifiability?  There are no scientific claims in the NT??

[abaris]

More to the heart of the matter, falsifiability cannot be an appropriate test for theism because it is impossible to falsify a universal negative.  And in order to falsify God’s existence, one would have to prove a universal negative: God does not exist.

Convenient, isn't it. While I agree that you can't prove a negative, it's totally up to faith to believe in that one particular god and not in all the other ones being invented over time.

Also, while moving the goal posts once more, you said something about history. I'm still waiting for your historical evidence. And no, bible proves bible doesn't do.

[SteveII]

So....you're..agreeing that the existence of God can't be tested and is unfalsifiable?

Yes. That does not mean that there is not evidence to suggest that God exists and that we can discuss the evidence. My point is falsifiability does not take the explanatory option of God off the table. 

[FatAndFaithless]

Okay, so we have Steve stating the existence of God cannot be tested and is unfalsifiable. Glad we got that down.

Provide your evidence for the existence of God.

[SteveII]

More to the heart of the matter, falsifiability cannot be an appropriate test for theism because it is impossible to falsify a universal negative.  And in order to falsify God’s existence, one would have to prove a universal negative: God does not exist.

Convenient, isn't it. While I agree that you can't prove a negative, it's totally up to faith to believe in that one particular god and not in all the other ones being invented over time.

Also, while moving the goal posts once more, you said something about history. I'm still waiting for your historical evidence. And no, bible proves bible doesn't do.

How about 27 books/letters and other historical references describing actual events (see, no Bible proves Bible). 

[robvalue]

I'm just gonna go outside and...

...

*bang*

[Crossless2.0]

Convenient, isn't it. While I agree that you can't prove a negative, it's totally up to faith to believe in that one particular god and not in all the other ones being invented over time.

Also, while moving the goal posts once more, you said something about history. I'm still waiting for your historical evidence. And no, bible proves bible doesn't do.

How about 27 books/letters and other historical references describing actual events (see, no Bible proves Bible). 

[Anima]

I also think there are various "theories" out there which are not falsifiable (in particular the Big Bang theory or M-Theory).  But then I would classify these theories as mathematical philosophy more than anything.

M-Theory (despite the name), is currently a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

The "Big Bang" Theory is absolutely testable and falsifiable.

Your classification system needs work.

Interesting. I would like to hear how you would test it for falseness. To my knowledge there is supporting observation evidence of the theory. But this is not the same as being testable of falsifiable.

[SteveII]

Convenient, isn't it. While I agree that you can't prove a negative, it's totally up to faith to believe in that one particular god and not in all the other ones being invented over time.

Also, while moving the goal posts once more, you said something about history. I'm still waiting for your historical evidence. And no, bible proves bible doesn't do.

How about 27 books/letters and other historical references describing actual events (see, no Bible proves Bible). 

You can stomp your feet all you want demanding proof. If I (and 2.2 billion others) want to believe the 1900+ year old content of the NT, I don't see why we are being unreasonable. I think for the belief to be unreasonable, you would have to prove that it is not what it claims to be. Are you denying that the first century Christians did not believe the way they said they did (and history shows the results)? I think the burden of proof does shift when there is no good reason not to believe the testimony of so many people.

Of course you will go to the miracles do not happen. You have to prove that they can't possibility have happened so you would have to prove that God does not exists--which you cannot, so...where is the unreasonableness (flaw in logic)?