RELIGION VS SCIENCE - the wrong discussion!

[ReasonToFollow]

I'll just cut to the chase here; I saw this historical video on YouTube about Jesus and this atheist posted a comment that got me thinking we're going about this the wrong way. The gist of what he said was this:

'Science is based on experiments that can be done over and over again which give the same outcome.'

I don't know about you but the penny dropped for me. It's a historical video and he turns to science. So what is he implying? That through an experiment he can show Jesus never existed as a person?! Let's ask the opposite. Can you prove I've existed through an experiment?

Here's my reasoning as to why God exists and why science never had a thing to do with it, but rather they live IN PERFECT HARMONY.

NOTE: these 5 steps I will show you are all hypothetical. Here we go:

1) Let's suppose there is a god. This means the teachings of jesus are 100% correct. He said 'follow me and you shall have eternal life' i.e. spend eternity with god.

2) Jesus said he was the son of god i.e. like god. Therefore if we disprove jesus as a person then there is no god. Through a scientific experiment prove to me that he never set foot on earth.

3) Science can't touch the existence of a person therefore it can't disprove jesus therefore it can't disprove his teachings which are of god because he WAS god.

4) In conclusion science is parallel to the word of god. That is, they can never and WILL never intersect and disprove each other.

5) If this is the case, then why would god want us to prove an infinite amount of scientific facts so that we can eventually say 'yes god, you are real' (still hypothetically thinking there is a god). Humanity would never enter heaven because of the nature of how they will trust god to be god.

My question to you atheist is this: If your life depended on answering the 'god question' right, who would you trust? Jesus christ i.e. god or a scientist claiming 'no' for the time being UNTIL (if ever) he gets an answer?

Keen to hear your thoughts on this!

[JustJim]

Welcome to the forum, RtF. When you get a chance, how about a brief introduction to let us know something about you?

1) Let's suppose there is a god. This means the teachings of jesus are 100% correct. He said 'follow me and you shall have eternal life' i.e. spend eternity with god.

First, there's no reason to suppose there is a god, other than for discussion purposes, which I'll temporarily grant you here. More importantly, the mere existence of a god, even the God described in the Bible, does not in any way have anything to do with whether the teachings of Jesus are correct or not. The teachings of some man, even if he claims to be God himself, does not mean he actually IS a god. It doesn't follow that because someone claims to be god, or says "follow me and you blah blah blah..," that his teachings are therefore 100% correct.

2) Jesus said he was the son of god i.e. like god. Therefore if we disprove jesus as a person then there is no god. Through a scientific experiment prove to me that he never set foot on earth.

It does not follow that because a man never had a son, the man didn't exist. That's what you're saying. If we disprove ReasonToFollow as a person, then his father doesn't exist. WTF? That's a ridiculous, illogical assertion. Maybe you meant to say something else?

3) Science can't touch the existence of a person therefore it can't disprove jesus therefore it can't disprove his teachings which are of god because he WAS god.

None of your "therefores" are logical conclusions based on any true premises. And science can, and does, "touch" the existence of persons all the time.

4) In conclusion science is parallel to the word of god. That is, they can never and WILL never intersect and disprove each other.

Science disproves religious claims all the time. Wise people who believe in God alter their understandings of God and what they believe about their God when science provides new information that casts new light on their previous beliefs. Not-so-wise people who believe in God hold staunchly to their beliefs no matter what the "facts" reveal. That's why there are still people who believe the earth is only 6-7,000 years old and was created by command in six literal 24-hour days.

5) If this is the case, then why would god want us to prove an infinite amount of scientific facts so that we can eventually say 'yes god, you are real' (still hypothetically thinking there is a god). Humanity would never enter heaven because of the nature of how they will trust god to be god.

LOL... This is actually funny from an atheist viewpoint. How do you respond to these things if you don't believe in gods, heaven, or some assumed 'nature' of a god in the first place?

My question to you atheist is this: If your life depended on answering the 'god question' right, who would you trust? Jesus christ i.e. god or a scientist claiming 'no' for the time being UNTIL (if ever) he gets an answer?

None of the above. I trust reason, common sense, and what can be demonstrated to be true (even if it hasn't yet been demonstrated). I'm happy with that. And my life certainly doesn't depend on answering any "god question" right. So far, as best we can tell, everyone eventually dies. And we have no evidence or reason to suspect that their lives continue in some other realm beyond this one. Hope and wishful thinking don't count as evidence or reason.

Again, welcome to the forum. I think you'll provoke lots of discussion here.

Jim

[ReasonToFollow]

Hey Jim, thanks for posting your thoughts!

I'll begin by saying I'm somewhat disappointed with your reply because of the fact that you tried to rebut every single one of my points on their own. If you read my 5 points as a whole then I think you'll see what I'm getting at.

"LOL... This is actually funny from an atheist viewpoint. How do you respond to these things if you don't believe in gods, heaven, or some assumed 'nature' of a god in the first place?"

Your response to point 5 is what I mean. Obviously by default your belief is that there is no God. I'm absolutely fine with that because we have free will, but my argument is a hypothetical one. I would have thought that to an atheist it would have been easy to follow! No faith required to see what I'm saying.

Let me ask again.. Let's ASSUME (for argument's sake as you said) that there is a God. Is it not logical to think that He wanted to make himself known in a much more obvious way instead of us spending generations trying to expand our understanding and eventually (if ever) discover that He is real? Because hypothetically if He is real, then we are sending ourselves to Hell as we speak through our curiosity in the natural world. Did he meant for us to be doing that? Or is that MAYBE why He sent Himself in the form of Jesus to let us know?

As for me being new and everything, I actually have no idea how forums work haha! This is the first one I've ever joined. As you can see I don't even know how to quote you the 'proper' way. I've got some learning to do haha.

[Moonwood the Hare]

I know it's a popular idea that we have free will in relation to what we believe but is it true? Can I chose to believe one thing or another? Am I not sometimes compelled to a belief by the evidence? Do I not sometimes simply experience things as true? If I believe firmly that 1+1=2 how easy is it to make myself believe 1+1=3? So when you say a person is an atheist because they have free will does that not assume a level of choice that simply is not there?

[JustJim]

Let me ask again.. Let's ASSUME (for argument's sake as you said) that there is a God. Is it not logical to think that He wanted to make himself known in a much more obvious way instead of us spending generations trying to expand our understanding and eventually (if ever) discover that He is real? Because hypothetically if He is real, then we are sending ourselves to Hell as we speak through our curiosity in the natural world. Did he meant for us to be doing that? Or is that MAYBE why He sent Himself in the form of Jesus to let us know?

You're not only assuming that there is a God. You're also assuming many other things about your God, and you're drawing conclusions that don't logically follow from your assumptions, or even from the 'facts' as we are able to determine them.

For example, how does it follow from assuming the existence of a God that this God is a male (you refer to your God as "He"), that he wants things (such as to make himself known to us in obvious ways, rather than waiting for us to 'discover' that he is 'real' through things like science), that there is a Hell, that your God doesn't want us to express our curiosity about his existence or examine his possible existence in the natural world, and will send us to Hell for doing so, or that he sent himself, as Jesus, to let us know about him? None of those things follow from the existence of God. They follow from your particular understanding and beliefs about the nature of your God. Assuming your basis for those things is the Bible and all you've decided it teaches about your particular Judeo-Christian God, you assert everything about your God as though it's all just a given that doesn't require proof or even evidence/reason to support your assertions.

Asking me (or others) to "assume" there is a God like the one you believe in doesn't do anything for the discussion. If God is exactly as you believe God to be, then everything you say about God is true and correct - using your beliefs as the standard of truth - and there's no more room for debate or disagreement. That's very much like me asking you to assume that Santa Claus exists and is exactly like he's been portrayed in literature over the years. If you say Santa doesn't exist, or claim Santa isn't like the books say he is, then you're just plain wrong.

You think that's logical?

Jim

[JustJim]

I know it's a popular idea that we have free will in relation to what we believe but is it true? Can I chose to believe one thing or another? Am I not sometimes compelled to a belief by the evidence? Do I not sometimes simply experience things as true? If I believe firmly that 1+1=2 how easy is it to make myself believe 1+1=3? So when you say a person is an atheist because they have free will does that not assume a level of choice that simply is not there?

I'm right there with you on this, Moonwood. I don't think we can "choose" to believe something or not believe it. We're either persuaded and convinced to believe by evidence and reason, filtered through our experience, or we're not. Atheists don't "choose" to not believe. And theists don't "choose" to believe, either.

On the other hand, I think there are many who have been taught to believe things and simply accept those beliefs without question until they have a need and opportunity to do so. Then they either confirm, modify, or discard those beliefs based on evidence and reason, filtered through their experience. Many atheists who used to be believers would fit that category, as would many theists who questioned their beliefs and kept them or modified them from what they were taught, while still remaining theists, or even those like Mitch, who went from an atheist upbringing to a theistic belief system.

I wish everyone would believe or not believe based on a genuine, thoughtful examination of what they consider to be evidence and good reason, rather than to just accept things because someone important in their lives said so. That's fine for children, but not for adults.

Jim

[mitchellmckain]

I know it's a popular idea that we have free will in relation to what we believe but is it true? Can I chose to believe one thing or another? Am I not sometimes compelled to a belief by the evidence? Do I not sometimes simply experience things as true? If I believe firmly that 1+1=2 how easy is it to make myself believe 1+1=3? So when you say a person is an atheist because they have free will does that not assume a level of choice that simply is not there?

Nope.

These are objectively undecidable issues. There is nothing compelling one conclusion or the other. The fact someone has reasons for one choice or another does not mean there is no free will. Reasons do not compell a conclusion. A thinking person can usually think of reasons that support either side of an issue and that does not prevent them from concluding that one side or the other is the correct one. The fact is that people choose their reasons just as they choose their position.

It is the issue of significance and what people value which flows from what they choose to do with their lives among the nearly endless opportunities and activities there are to choose from. And thus beliefs are no more or less subject to free will than anything else.

But then this ultimate issue of whether there is any free will at all can be considered an undecidable issue in of itself. Even granted that physical determinism has proven to be false, one can simply decide this means that one is at the mercy of indeterministic random quantum events as much as they are at the mercy of the operation of natural law. But frankly, I think this simply comes down to whether one is willing to take responsibility for ones own actions and life or not. That is the most fundamental choice of all and I certainly cannot make it for anyone else. Thus one is certainly free to decide that one has no free will and is thus in no way responsible for what he is and does. This is one area where I think that belief very much determines reality in some sense.

On the other hand, this means that responsibility is ultimately inescapable because even this choice to not be responsible is choice to which others can and should hold you responsible. You can indeed throw away your free will in all kinds of habits of thought and action -- substance addiction being one of the more striking examples, but these are circumstances of which you cannot always absolve yourself of all responsibility. And even if this ultimate question of the existence of free will is objectively undecidable on a philosophical level, the practical dictates of human society do not allow us such luxuries. We cannot have a functional human society UNLESS we hold people responsible for what they do.

[Aaron]

You're not only assuming that there is a God. You're also assuming many other things about your God

What's wrong with those assumptions. If you are going to assume there's a God for the purposes of rational discussion it seems perfectly reasonable to me to also offer some additional assumptions to help define what you actually mean by that God. But I agree that just because a person offers these assumptions doesn't necessarily mean they will always draw logical conclusions from them.

If God is exactly as you believe God to be, then everything you say about God is true and correct - using your beliefs as the standard of truth - and there's no more room for debate or disagreement.

I think there's plenty of room for debate, unless the other person has their fingers in there ears shouting their beliefs at those foolish enough to try and reason with them. What's wrong with arguing on the Christian side of the fence? In fact, in my opinion, the best place to argue is inside of the other sides own camp, if you can show that their side doesn't even hold water in and of itself what more could you ask for?

[Moonwood the Hare]

Nope.

These are objectively undecidable issues. There is nothing compelling one conclusion or the other.

Well I disagree at this point. Because a controversy is objectively undecidable does not mean one side cannot be subjectively compelling. You give the example that the issue of whether we have free will may be objectively undecidable but the reason most people feel that they have free will is that subjectively they feel they do, and that feeling is very compelling. I just don't feel that I exercise free will in relation to beliefs or for that matter values (so I really do think the existentialists have this one wrong - except Berdyayev who talks about creating values rather than choosing them). If someone says I think this is true because I have chosen to believe it I find that hard to buy. How can my choice be a reason for thinking something is true. If the choice is not utterly arbitrary then the reason for choosing would have to be because I want it to be true. Normally when we say to someone you only believe this because you want it to be true we think that is an invalid ground for belief.

[Dr Mundo]

You're not only assuming that there is a God. You're also assuming many other things about your God

What's wrong with those assumptions. If you are going to assume there's a God for the purposes of rational discussion it seems perfectly reasonable to me to also offer some additional assumptions to help define what you actually mean by that God. But I agree that just because a person offers these assumptions doesn't necessarily mean they will always draw logical conclusions from them.

Because now after we accept all those assumptions we are left with no where to go with the conversation.

So lets say I accepted all the assumptions that he asserted. What then. He is right by definition, and all I can say is that I still would not worship this God, but that everything he is saying is true. We can have a philosophical discussion on the right/wrongness of the actions of this God with respect to human life, and that conversation is fine to have, accurately i think its important to have. But as for the truth claims we are left with our hands tied behind our back, after having assumed those assertions as facts. Something that is important to get out of conversations is a new perspective on a certain issue, and I don't see it with just assuming those things about his God. Because after we are going back to the real world, form this hypothetical one, what did we gain from it as to the validity of a God existing? We still have no prof that this God even exists at all. All we did was assume our way to the conclusion. One assumption that could be made to start things off is the existence of this God, after that we can try to demonstrate attributes not assume them. If we cannot then perhaps there is some problem with the concept of God that we are adopting? what Kind of God, who really wants people to go to "heaven" would obscure its existence from people who sincerely are unable to hold a belief with such poor evidence or lack of any at all?

What's wrong with arguing on the Christian side of the fence? In fact, in my opinion, the best place to argue is inside of the other sides own camp, if you can show that their side doesn't even hold water in and of itself what more could you ask for?

I feel like this has been going on for a while now. People have been arguing against the Christian side with great success (logically at least, maybe not popularly or as popular as I would like it.) People all across the board have shown how Christianity "doesn't even hold water" but you guys don't care. You will continue to believe because, somehow you know you are right. You may not have any good demonstrable evidence to support it, but you know you are right, so the discussions only produce impact-full responses from a few theists, and sometimes from a few atheists.

[Keep The Reason]

Hi RTF, this is KTR. Welcome to the Kitchen.

Here's my reasoning as to why God exists and why science never had a thing to do with it, but rather they live IN PERFECT HARMONY.

Ok-- let's see how they live in PERFECT harmony.

NOTE: these 5 steps I will show you are all hypothetical.

Uhm-- ok, I thought they live in PERFECT HARMONY. Now it's "HYPOTHETICAL HARMONY"? That kind of changes your premise around a bit. I'd say about 180 degrees around.

1) Let's suppose there is a god.

Ooofah. Wait a minute. I have to grant you the conclusion of your reasons why god exists at the very first sentence? I think this is completely unfair. You come here and say, "Here are the reasons as to why god exists. Now first-- let's suppose god exists."

Well, ok-- seems to me you're done the moment I grant you that. So rather than grant you the conclusion of your argument as you utter the first 6 words of your argument, how about this: No! I won't grant you that.

Now what?

I won't grant you that, but let's dissect the rest of your argument anyway.

This means the teachings of jesus are 100% correct. He said 'follow me and you shall have eternal life' i.e. spend eternity with god.

Ah, what your first requirement is should have read: "Let's suppose the Christian god exists". But you didn't say that-- you just said "god". So if I were to grant you the supposition, which I don't, then this next statement would be wrong anyway unless you could prove or demonstrate that it's the Christian god whom I am granting you a supposition of existence (which I don't).

So your argument is arrogantly assuming the biblical god exists. Well, what if the god you claim exists is not that god? What if it's Quetzalcoatl? Or Isis? Or Zeus for that matter? Then of course, Jesus is 100% wrong and now your first and second comments fail.

2) Jesus said he was the son of god i.e. like god. Therefore if we disprove jesus as a person then there is no god. Through a scientific experiment prove to me that he never set foot on earth.

Well, I've already established that Jesus could have been wrong depending upon which god you choose to float. You are (arrogantly, I might add) taking it for granted that it must be the biblical god (new testament included) who exists, and there are billions of people out there who don't believe in that god-- so you're at a dead end on this one.

Secondly, I don't have to prove something does not exist. This is Logic 101, and theists seem to always begin with this lame and broken approach (I mean, when will this ever end??). I don't have to "disprove Jesus never set a foot on Earth" because I am not the one claiming he exists -- you are. So it's your job to provide facts that he did exist.

3) Science can't touch the existence of a person therefore it can't disprove jesus therefore it can't disprove his teachings which are of god because he WAS god.

I have this premise that a person who calls themselves "ReasonToFollow" exists in a space time continuum in which I share. I know this from empirical evidence that a person is typing on the other side of my monitor across what is called "the Internet" a response. When that person replies to this post, he or she will have offered confirmation that they do exist. Of course, it may be a sophisticated software program that is typing these responses to me, but that's decipherable as well. And, even if all avenues online were exhausted, I could still travel to the place where this alleged "ReasonToFollow" is, and interact with him or her directly, and establish a solid demonstration that this person does in fact exist.

That would be all at my disposal if I had to establish for a fact that a person called "ReasonToFollow" existed, which is a premise I am making. It would be absurd for me to say to someone who questions my assertion, "Reason ToFollow exists-- hahaha! Prove he or she doesn't!" There is no way to do that. It's an absurd and ridiculous expectation. Just like it's absurd and ridiculous for the theist to go around spouting this ancient nonsense that those who don't believe the theists' hypothesis that we are tasked with disproving your nonsense. No. You are tasked with demonstrating your own nonsense.

Or, I could adopt your method and say,

1) Let's suppose a person called "ReasonToFollow" exists.

You seem to think it would work for you.

4) In conclusion science is parallel to the word of god. That is, they can never and WILL never intersect and disprove each other.

Ah, a new form of argumentation. Argumentum Leftist Fieldiest. What the hell does this have to do with anything??

How did you go from your statement "Science can't disprove the nonsense I spout" to "In conclusion science is parallel to the word of god"?? This is like a non sequitor joke:

Two elephants were in a bath tub. One said, "Please pass the soap" and the other said, "No soap, radio."

5) If this is the case, then why would god want us to prove an infinite amount of scientific facts so that we can eventually say 'yes god, you are real' (still hypothetically thinking there is a god). Humanity would never enter heaven because of the nature of how they will trust god to be god.

It's not only not the case, but your case doesn't even hold together. You're trying to sound logical and I'm sorry but you're kind of just babbling, and embracing absurd constructs at a foundational level. And making really embarrassing assumptions (embarrassing to theists that is). Your initial premise is faulty, your examples are self-contradicting, and your conclusions are the cart before the horse's mother, let alone the horse itself.

My question to you atheist is this: If your life depended on answering the 'god question' right, who would you trust? Jesus christ i.e. god or a scientist claiming 'no' for the time being UNTIL (if ever) he gets an answer?

And now you adopt the coup de grace of the "veiled threat" argument-- "Ooooh, what are you going to do atheists??? Hmmmmm? Are you going to risk Helllllllfiiiiiire??? Hmmm? Ooooooh, scaaaaaaaaryyyyy!"

Jesus H. Christ in a sidecar. It's like you folks are cookie-cutter stamped out of the same factory. I'll bet you think a banana proves creation too.

Keen to hear your thoughts on this!

Are you sure about that?

[Keep The Reason]

What's wrong with those assumptions. If you are going to assume there's a God for the purposes of rational discussion it seems perfectly reasonable to me to also offer some additional assumptions to help define what you actually mean by that God. But I agree that just because a person offers these assumptions doesn't necessarily mean they will always draw logical conclusions from them.

Technically, for discussion purposes, nothing is wrong with it. But come on theists-- look at the illogical mess of an argument RTF floats here. You're all being very nice not calling out the utter chaos of his OP. Come on people; are you all going to wink at it and let it sit there?

I think there's plenty of room for debate, unless the other person has their fingers in there ears shouting their beliefs at those foolish enough to try and reason with them. What's wrong with arguing on the Christian side of the fence? In fact, in my opinion, the best place to argue is inside of the other sides own camp, if you can show that their side doesn't even hold water in and of itself what more could you ask for?

Because the guys on your side of the debate have run this discussion for two thousand fucking years. When is it ENOUGH? We have heard every argument, from every angle, and we've addressed them in minute detail, and you have even the remotest audacity to suggest we have our fingers in our ears?? Science has repeatedly pounded the realm of religious world-view into a huddled ball on the floor -- specifically the Christian religion -- until you're left with completely vague propositions like, "God hates sin" "There is a Heaven and Hell" "Jesus is redeemer" -- all empty assertions that are undemonstrable and rely on belief detached from empirical evidence, mere word-of-mouth, and an ancient discredited book of poetry and mythology.... and we have our fingers in OUR ears?

You all just let this stuff fly on by without a hint of addressing it:

2) Through a scientific experiment prove to me that he never set foot on earth.

4) In conclusion science is parallel to the word of god. That is, they can never and WILL never intersect and disprove each other.

and the award winning:

If your life depended on answering the 'god question' right, who would you trust? Jesus christ i.e. god or a scientist claiming 'no' for the time being UNTIL (if ever) he gets an answer?

Not one of you is actively calling out RTF's messy argument. If any atheist floated nonsense like this, you'd be on it like white on rice; meanwhile, suddenly you're all giving wide berth and red herring with "free will" comments. At the end of the day, do you guys have any intellectual integrity whatsoever?

[JustJim]

You're not only assuming that there is a God. You're also assuming many other things about your God

What's wrong with those assumptions. If you are going to assume there's a God for the purposes of rational discussion it seems perfectly reasonable to me to also offer some additional assumptions to help define what you actually mean by that God. But I agree that just because a person offers these assumptions doesn't necessarily mean they will always draw logical conclusions from them.

If God is exactly as you believe God to be, then everything you say about God is true and correct - using your beliefs as the standard of truth - and there's no more room for debate or disagreement.

I think there's plenty of room for debate, unless the other person has their fingers in there ears shouting their beliefs at those foolish enough to try and reason with them. What's wrong with arguing on the Christian side of the fence? In fact, in my opinion, the best place to argue is inside of the other sides own camp, if you can show that their side doesn't even hold water in and of itself what more could you ask for?

Aaron,

I was responding to the conditions he set up. He's asking us to assume everything he believes about God is true, and if we agree to do that, there's no need to go any further. If we express disagreement, then we're not assuming his beliefs are true, which is what he wants us to do in order to discuss it with him.

There's no room for debate if the person you're going to debate first demands that you assume everything he says is true.

Jim

[Dr Mundo]

Others have done a Good job already in explaining how faulty this Original post was but I figured I would give my $0.02, Also I would love to hear a Christian rebut this to help him out in making better arguments in the future. I would love it if I got some positive feedback on my posts, because I know I could use help as well.

I don't know about you but the penny dropped for me. It's a historical video and he turns to science. So what is he implying? That through an experiment he can show Jesus never existed as a person?!

I don't think anyone (at least anyone who is reasonable) would ever try to show that Jesus never existed as a person. For one I don't think its possible to accurately do that, and two no one needs to. Whether or not a person named Jesus existed is of little consequence to me. We don't need to prove he didn't exists for us to not believe that there are supernatural forces guiding life and the universe.

Let's ask the opposite. Can you prove I've existed through an experiment?

I actually think that you can. It depends on how you define existence. You exist already because of your post and your interactions with the rest of us. Do you exist as a person? I don't know, you could be a computer program that is sophisticated enough to communicate with sentient beings like ourselves, but none the less you would still be in existence by the act of interacting with things that already do exist. In other words we can demonstrate through evidence and observation that you are in fact interacting with us, thus granting you the title of existence.

Here's my reasoning as to why God exists and why science never had a thing to do with it, but rather they live IN PERFECT HARMONY.

it both has nothing to do with Science and lives in perfect harmony with it? interesting.

Here we go:

Indeed.

1) Let's suppose there is a god. This means the teachings of jesus are 100% correct. He said 'follow me and you shall have eternal life' i.e. spend eternity with god.

Just because we are supposing a God exists does not mean the teachings of Jesus are 100% correct, so how did you get to that conclusion? Is this an other assumption we must accept to further the discussion? Are the teachings of Jesus 100% correct because there is a God? or because he said to follow him? This first statement makes very little sense.

2) Jesus said he was the son of god i.e. like god. Therefore if we disprove jesus as a person then there is no god. Through a scientific experiment prove to me that he never set foot on earth.

A book claims that this person "Jesus" said he was God (vaguely). We have no actual knowledge of Jesus actually claiming he was God. For all we know Jesus could have been a person who was trying to teach people how to live and his message got mangled into something that didn't really represent his views. Also disproving Jesus as a person has nothing to do with the proposition of a Gods existence (how could you even disprove Jesus?). If Jesus did not exist than it would logically follow that there is no God, of the bible (NT). That is perhaps what you meant to say?

5) If this is the case, then why would god want us to prove an infinite amount of scientific facts so that we can eventually say 'yes god, you are real' (still hypothetically thinking there is a god). Humanity would never enter heaven because of the nature of how they will trust god to be god.

Suppose a God created us with our innate curiosity and our intellect with the inability to just accept propositions without first being convinced they are true. You actually think that expressing our curiosity and behaving in accordance to how we have apparently been created, is sufficient justification for punishment,

My question to you atheist is this: If your life depended on answering the 'god question' right, who would you trust? Jesus christ i.e. god or a scientist claiming 'no' for the time being UNTIL (if ever) he gets an answer?

If my life depended on answering a question about philosophy/religion wrong. I would have to ask myself how the hell did I get myself into this mess and who the fuck is going to hurt me based on not knowing the correct answer? Anyways I am pretty sure this question is absolutely meaningless to the audience you are asking it of. We don't believe in Jesus Christ, so how can we trust that in which we don't even believe? Let me ask you this. Would you trust a data sheet based on trends in the stock market, or Gabanon the Great, if you were trying to decide on what stocks you were going to invest a large portion of your stock portfolio?

[Aaron]

I was responding to the conditions he set up. He's asking us to assume everything he believes about God is true, and if we agree to do that, there's no need to go any further. If we express disagreement, then we're not assuming his beliefs are true, which is what he wants us to do in order to discuss it with him.

There's no room for debate if the person you're going to debate first demands that you assume everything he says is true.

Yeah okay, I can see where you're coming from. Although I still stand by what I wrote.