Stump the Christian?

[Randy Carson]

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

No, it's not. Anything that acts in this world will leave measurable traces in this world whether the actor is immaterial or not. Science can (and would if any of you christers could provide any) test and verify/refute these traces. Problem (for you guys) is that no trace has ever been found.

So, it is not possible for a being that is pure spirit to exist or interact with the universe, and and you know this with 100% certainty because you cannot verify the existence or presence of such a being with your scientific instruments.

Got it.

Nothing circular about that. No, siree.

[FatAndFaithless]

A being that cannot be measured, tested, investigated, or examined by our tools is indistinguishable from a being that doesn't exist.

[abaris]

So, it is not possible for a being that is pure spirit to exist or interact with the universe, and and you know this with 100% certainty because you cannot verify the existence or presence of such a being with your scientific instruments.

Got it.

Nothing circular about that. No, siree.

If you are able to present a being of pure spirit, I might reconsider my opinion of the above being a steaming pile of shit.

[Ravenshire]

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)? 

Nope. Miracle claims are up for you to prove. No shifting the burden to those who don't believe your BS.

Tell you what, you prove that miracles were ever possible (testimonials, ie. the buy-bull doesn't count) and you'll earn yourself a fucking Nobel Prize.

[SteveII]

We are not talking about science, we are talking about historical events -- huge difference. 

Bullshit! History is a "soft science."

...and does not have the same framework AT ALL in examining evidence. 

[Randy Carson]

Maybe because we've read it and understood it properly? 

---

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

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

---

Christians lie.
Christians are intellectually dishonest.
Christians are prideful.
Christians are deluded.

Man, it sure is refreshing to see how wonderfully developed the atheist sense of living in harmony with and caring for others really is. Gotta love that societal evolution.

---

How so, rob?

What if God created all things and used evolution to get us to this point?

---

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

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

"Maybe because we've read it and understood it properly?" Then your either delusional or dishonest.

Right. 

If I think I understand the Bible, then I'm deluded. 
If I haven't read the Bible, but I claim that I have, I'm being dishonest. 
If I've read the Bible and I know I don't understand, but I claim that I do, I'm being dishonest. 

Because "we've read [the Bible] and understood it properly" is not possibly an alternative.

[Ravenshire]

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

What existed just prior to the Big Bang?

You're talking about the beginning of space-time. That question makes as much sense as this: "What lies to the north of the north pole?!?"

[Ravenshire]

Bullshit! History is a "soft science."

...and does not have the same framework AT ALL in examining evidence. 

Shift the goal posts much?!?

[Anima]

The theory makes (by implication) several predictions of what we ought to observe.  If we have the capability of making those observations, and what we observe is not what was predicted, viola the theory is falsified.

As an example, the theory implies what we ought to observe regarding the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background.  Had the observations not conformed to the predicted, the theory would have been falsified.  The observations do match, however.

Hmm... So all Steve would need for his Theory is for it to make predictions which are observable. If the observations match the predictions than you would say the Theory is sound. If the observations do not satisfy the predictions than it is not sound...

So, say Steve were to say that acting in a manner which was not in accordance with the moral schema stipulated by his theory of God would result in some suffering or punishment outlined by said theory. Would his theory be justified if one who acts in opposition to the schema in the exact manner specified suffered in the manner specified?

[Randy Carson]

What existed just prior to the Big Bang?

You're talking about the beginning of space-time. That question makes as much sense as this: "What lies to the north of the north pole?!?"

If absolutely nothing existed prior to the Big Bang, why did it happen and where did all this "stuff" come from?