Stump the Christian?

[Crossless2.0]

I don't have to prove any of it. It is my THEORY.

You're incredibly dishonest.

Goes with the territory.  What else do you expect from a Christian?

[dyresand]

1. The universe doesn't have a cause no one created. Nature working as intended. 
2. No shit life exists. We are probably not the only living things in the universe. There was life giving carbon found in space on meteors.
3. Evolution google that shit. 
4. Nah they didn't 
5. Still never existed you gotta prove his mom existed for him to exst.
6. Why Science Can't Accept Miracles (Even If They Happen)

• The oft-stated claim that miracles are "outside of science" is true enough, but doesn't explain anything, and merely makes science look arbitrary and closed-minded in the eyes of non-scientists. So it should simply be junked.
  
  
• Too credulous belief in miracles can be a lazy way of dealing with any problem or explaining away any inconvenient fact. Can't see how evolution works? Must be miracles instead. Just imagine if accountants accepted miracles as explanations for discrepancies, or the police accepted miracles as explanations for how fingerprints got on things. Even if miracles occur, they could only be accepted as such after the most rigorous scrutiny. Anything else is an open invitation to intellectual anarchy.
  
  
• One principal reason science rejects miracles is that the vast majority of miracle claims have proven untrustworthy and the rest are indeterminate. Religious believers need to clean up their own house before accusing science of being unreasonable. Don't tell me that you personally are reliable. Get the whole house clean. That will pretty much keep you busy for the rest of your life, in case you're looking for a purpose in life.
  
  
• A well known fallacy in UFO studies applies here, too. UFO enthusiasts agree that fakes and mistaken observations are widespread but there is always a small "residue" of cases that can't be dismissed. But we live in a universe of patterns. If most UFO sightings are fakes or erroneous, we are justified in assuming the unexplained cases are too. The burden of proof is on the believer to show that his case is genuine. Exactly the same reasoning applies to miracles.
  
  
• Even if an unquestionably anomalous event occurred, not explainable in terms of any known laws of nature, we cannot rule out the possibility that the event is due to unknown laws of nature. Hume was right; no amount of evidence for a miracle can rule out the possibility of some hidden flaw in the evidence or unknown natural explanation. However, Hume made the unwarranted leap from "miracles can't be proven" to "miracles don't happen."
  
  
• A second principal reason science rejects miracles, therefore, is that writing something off as a miracle forecloses any possibility of explaining it in other terms.
  
  
• Even if, through some unknown means, we establish that an event is genuinely miraculous, we are left with an isolated anomaly that tells us nothing. Just because a miracle is reported by a member of some sect doesn't mean the event supports that sect's interpretations.
  
  
• The fact something is possible doesn't mean we have to regard it as likely. I may get hit by a meteorite, but I don't spend time dwelling on it. A miracle may influence the course of a disease, but most religious believers will still go to the doctor. (The ones who have the courage of their convictions and reject all medical intervention usually die.)
  
  
• taken from https://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/WhyNoMiracles.HTM
  7. Do you even know what a god shape is. god is only in the brain because you wan't it to be there.8. No no no no once again give proof or gtfo
  

I don't have to prove any of it. It is my THEORY. Just like scientific theories (like evolution), I am considering the evidence, developing a probabilistic scenario that fits this evidence, and I cannot find solid contradictory evidence or a competing theory that fits these observations better. You can whine that any or all of these things are not true but you cannot prove any of them are untrue.  Therefore I am reasonable (not necessarily right) to conclude God exists. 

Oh, and I can test my THEORY: God still works in people's lives, there is the "inter-witness" of the Holy Spirit, miracles still happen, and we continue to have a god-shaped hole in our psychology generation after generation.

You simply cannot use the word theory without having scientific facts. The word theory is a strong word to use it has to be documented and testable and the results have to be consistent for it to be a theory. Its things like this that make the word theory so cheap and easy to throw around. But in this case your supposition is not general as there is many sects of christianity and heck even catholicism can be brought in too. And nothing in the bible can be explained even god. 

definition of theory a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

[Anima]

I liked this.  Only because it seems perfectly natural that Newtonian Physics and Gravitational Theory (that is right.  It is a theory best described by general relativity) owns the real material world.  As pragmatic as it would be to say that nothing exists which is not described by Newtonian Physics and Gravitational Theory, saying such would eliminate entire class of the physical world (quantum mechanics)

And by the way.  When there are anomalies in the gravitational theory.  The common proposal is to some aether or ethereal substance such as dark matter or dark energy.  

"Extra-fast stars: Stars in galaxies follow a distribution of velocities where stars on the outskirts are moving faster than they should according to the observed distributions of normal matter. Galaxies within galaxy clusters show a similar pattern. Dark matter, which would interact gravitationally but not electromagnetically, would account for the discrepancy. Various modifications to Newtonian dynamics have also been proposed.
Flyby anomaly: Various spacecraft have experienced greater acceleration than expected during gravity assist maneuvers."

"Accelerating expansion: The metric expansion of space seems to be speeding up. Dark energy has been proposed to explain this. A recent alternative explanation is that the geometry of space is not homogeneous (due to clusters of galaxies) and that when the data are reinterpreted to take this into account, the expansion is not speeding up after all,[29] however this conclusion is disputed.[30]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#Ano...crepancies

(Because it would be ridiculous to say there are ethereal things that are not simply stuff.  Ethereal stuff...okay.  Ethereal things...Possibly.  Ethereal stuff or things with sentience as to qualify as being.  YOU ARE A NUT!!!)

Dark matter/energy is not ethereal.  

1. dark energy definition. An as yet unknown and unidentified form ofenergy that pervades the universe and produces a force that counteracts the gravitational attraction between galaxies. Note: Dark energy is thought to be responsible for the accelerating universe.
   meaning it causes the rapid expansion of the universe. But considering as of now i'm on, the universe is going to collapses back in on itself. Dark matter/energy make the universe expand but not forever, that being said well our place in the universe will be up soon though humanity wont more than likely wont be around to see the end. 
   

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/big-cr...d-universe

I am sorry. Are you trying to provide a definition for an unknown thing to say it is not something? That would be one amazing feat. While you may provide the minimum aspect or function of said thing (counteracts gravitational force), since it unknown you cannot state the limit or extent of that thing or what the thing is. To do so is to presuppose what the thing is (which I understand is bigot thing that only Christians do.)

[Cato]

I don't have to prove any of it. It is my THEORY. Just like scientific theories (like evolution), I am considering the evidence, developing a probabilistic scenario that fits this evidence, and I cannot find solid contradictory evidence or a competing theory that fits these observations better. You can whine that any or all of these things are not true but you cannot prove any of them are untrue.  Therefore I am reasonable (not necessarily right) to conclude God exists. 

Oh, and I can test my THEORY: God still works in people's lives, there is the "inter-witness" of the Holy Spirit, miracles still happen, and we continue to have a god-shaped hole in our psychology generation after generation.

There's a shitload of intellectual dishonesty in here. If you're honest with your approach you have no grounds for denying anybody's claims about anything; whether it be other religions, Sasquatch, homeopathy, etc. Just because it can be imagined does not necessarily mean it's possible.

Analysis of available information does not lead to God. You already accept the existence of God imbued with all the characteristics that have been assigned to it over thousands of years. It's inconceivable to me that if there was no religion or idea of God to begin with that somehow God would become a rational explanation for our observations. This is what you would have us believe.

It reminds me of the scene from Hunt For Red October where Jonesy explains that the software being used to identify submarine acoustics was originally designed to detect underwater seismic events. When the input 'confuses' the software it 'runs home to mama' and falsely concludes that what it is detecting is magma displacement.

[SteveII]

You simply cannot use the word theory without having scientific facts. The word theory is a strong word to use it has to be documented and testable and the results have to be consistent for it to be a theory. Its things like this that make the word theory so cheap and easy to throw around. But in this case your supposition is not general as there is many sects of christianity and heck even catholicism can be brought in too. And nothing in the bible can be explained even god. 

definition of theory a supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something, especially one based on general principles independent of the thing to be explained.

I didn't say it was a scientific theory--just that it has parallels to, say, evolutionary theory. Anyway, how does my theory not match your definition you typed? I have evidence (see my 8 listed) which I am trying to explain.

[FatAndFaithless]

Steve, you're incredibly dishonest.

[robvalue]

Wow. You have got to be kidding me. After having exactly what "theory" means in a scientific sense over and over, you're still going to misuse it Steve? What you put forward are hypotheses. You're incredibly dishonest and I'm done with you. It is only a "theory" in the informal sense, and you're deliberately conflating the definitions in a desperate attempt to give weight to your religious beliefs. Apologetics equals dishonesty, once again.

Maybe one day you will learn what science is, and learn what the theory of evolution is. Because right now you have no clue about either, and you're just making that more and more clear. It is so sad to see religious belief blatantly causing a refusal to learn.

[dyresand]

Dark matter/energy is not ethereal.  

1. dark energy definition. An as yet unknown and unidentified form ofenergy that pervades the universe and produces a force that counteracts the gravitational attraction between galaxies. Note: Dark energy is thought to be responsible for the accelerating universe.
   meaning it causes the rapid expansion of the universe. But considering as of now i'm on, the universe is going to collapses back in on itself. Dark matter/energy make the universe expand but not forever, that being said well our place in the universe will be up soon though humanity wont more than likely wont be around to see the end. 
   

http://www.iflscience.com/physics/big-cr...d-universe

I am sorry.  Are you trying to provide a definition for an unknown thing to say it is not something?  That would be one amazing feat.  While you may provide the minimum aspect or function of said thing (counteracts gravitational force), since it unknown you cannot state the limit or extent of that thing or what the thing is.  To do so is to presuppose what the thing is (which I understand is bigot thing that only Christians do.)

What i am trying to say is dark energy/matter is a thing. We know its there because we know the universe expands. The stars galaxies that NASA takes pictures of isn't even there anymore. Rather the light from said galaxies are reaching us and giving us a peek into what was there at that point. To explain that a bit better, distance in a vacuum that being said stars in the night sky when you look up might not even be there anymore because light and information takes light years to reach us. So those galaxies nasa has taken pictures off aren't even there anymore due to expansion. Stars and other formations more than likely gone. That being said when they do reach there eventual collapse and go supernova and or collapses into itself turning into a black hole. We will still see a star but once again it would take billions of light years for new information and or light to reach us.

[SteveII]

There's a shitload of intellectual dishonesty in here. If you're honest with your approach you have no grounds for denying anybody's claims about anything; whether it be other religions, Sasquatch, homeopathy, etc. Just because it can be imagined does not necessarily mean it's possible.

I am not trying to prove anything here. All I can do is compare other religious to my list of 8 and see how they stack up. If another religions takes into account my list and theorizes a different scenario, I would also consider that religion reasonable. Again, not true, just reasonable.

[Esquilax]

According to the Christian THEORY (since I don't need to be certain of anything to have a theory, I just need some evidence that agrees with my conclusions) God has interacted with our reality (not meant to be an exhaustive list):

Is this really what you're going to do? You have the definition of a scientific theory, which includes a list of essential criteria, including falsifiability and predictive capability, parsimony, and consistency with other experimental results, and instead of seriously engaging in this conversation you're just going to dishonestly grandstand like this?

Well, whatever. You don't match any of the criteria: what you have here is just a theory, a guess based on your presuppositions, rather than a scientific theory. I'm genuinely sorry that playing up to your own pride is more important to you than the honest discussion that could have taken place here.

1) The universe had a cause

Universal expansion has a cause, beyond that we don't even have an adequate physics model to explain what happens. Learn your astrophysics.

2) Life exists
3) Complex biological systems exist

Okay.

4) The ancient Jews interacted with God quite a bit

And now you've made a claim that is both unfalsifiable and unevidenced. I thought this was supposed to be a list of evidence, why are you putting a completely unjustified fiat claim on it?

5) Jesus came, ministered, performed miracles, died, and was resurrected
6) Miracles still happen
7) There is a god-shaped hole in everyone's psychology
8) The "inter-witness of the Holy Spirit" (there, that should get all the WLC fans going)

Five unjustified fiat claims? How on earth can you consider this a list of evidence?

Of course you will pick apart each one as "you can't prove..." and "baseless assertions". I don't have to prove them, just like evolution, the mountain of evidence I have points to a probabilistic conclusion that the God of Christianity exists. Until I am presented with a theory that answers all of these questions with a different answer, that is what I choose to believe.

Despite the vitriol that is sure to come, this is not an unreasonable THEORY--much like believing in evolutionary theory is not unreasonable.

What an utter disappointment you've turned out to be. You're not interested in learning, you're just another patsy for your religion. It's completely vile that you represented yourself as someone willing to engage honestly with the facts, when in truth you were nothing but. I thought your god didn't like liars, so I guess your devotion to him is secondary to your need to massage your ego.