Challenge to Christians (Reissued)

Regular readers will no doubt remember the hilarity, and no little hysteria, which ensued when I challenged Manuel de Dios Agosto, the expelled seminarian who post on twitter using a variety of usernames (some of which are listed here) including @Sacerdotus, to debate a very simple proposition. He had been boasting that he had irrefutable scientific evidence for the Christian god so I challenged him to justify his claim. The result, and his subsequent meltdown can be seen here (it is not for the faint-hearted!)



So, with the above in mind, I have opened the challenge to anyone else who holds this same belief - that there is irrefutable scientific evidence for only the Christian god. Can you do better that Manuel? It would be hard to do worse. He took one look at the proposition, saw what a scientific definition actually was, started screaming and shouting abuse and hasn't got his composure back yet. Don't try it if you're also of an unstable disposition!



The (non-negotiable) proposition is:

There is verifiable, scientific evidence for only the Christian God for which no possible natural explanation can exist.

This is non-negotiable because anything less would not validate the belief.



Also non-negotiable:

The proposer (that is the person accepting this challenge) will supply an agreed scientific definition of the Christian God against which the proposition can be tested, precise details of the evidence and how it can be verified, how the hypothesis that it proves only the Christian god is real it could be falsified, and how it establishes the truth of the proposition beyond reasonable doubt. Failure to do so will be regarded as conceding the debate.



Quotes from a book, appeals to authority, statements of 'faith', personal opinion and sincerely held beliefs will not be accepted as evidence unless accompanied by scientifically verifiable evidence.



The forum is to be mutually agreed. All contribution will be echoed to this blog and either party may publish the entire debate in any medium. The forum will not be a blog over which either participant has full control.

The negotiable terms and conditions are:

A neutral referee will be agreed. The rulings of this referee will be final and binding on both parties to the debate. The referee will rule on:

1. Whether an assertion of fact has been validated with verified evidence.


2. Whether questions have been answered fully, honestly and without prevarication.


3. The meaning of words, when these are in dispute.


4. Whether an argument was ad hominem or not.


5. Any other disputes when requested by either of the parties to the debate.


6. Whether a referral to the referee was mendacious or an attempt to prevaricate, divert or otherwise obstruct the normal flow of debate.


7. The referee may intervene at any time to declare the debate won, lost or drawn.

Should either party fail to provide evidence for which a claim of its existence has been made, the debate will be considered lost.



Making any claim which is shown to be untrue or unsupported by evidence will result in forfeiture of the debate.



Ad hominem arguments will result in forfeiture.



Failure to respond to a reasonable point, answer a reasonable question or to supply the evidence requested within three days (subject to notified periods of absence) will result in forfeiture.

You might want to familiarise yourself with these common fallacies listed here before you start.



So, who's up for it? Can you justify your beliefs in open debate?



If not, you might like to ask yourself why you hold them.



(It almost goes without saying that Manuel need not apply having failed so abysmally once already).

---

Share

Twitter Tweet

StumbleUpon

Reddit