This is why I don't like debating religion

[Bong Lover]

Alara317 said:

mrstickball said:

Bong Lover said:

JoeTheBro said:
Your problem is that you're arguing for science as a way to argue against religion. Even if you succeed in "proving" science, you've done nothing against religion.

I hope the OP reads this post and understands what it means. Trying to apply the scientific method to matters of faith is folly. It's like trying to solve a math problem with a fish. 

This, exactly.

You can't use scientific method to explain a philosophical concept. God is not empirical, therefore cannot be validated by the scientific method.

Some of the OPs arguments are rather weak. We know that Jesus existed. We know that the Bible is real, and all evidence points to a document that agrees with the vast majority of translations and copies that are available (moreso than any other document from the time period by huge margins).

The real question is simply that of faith: Do you believe that Jesus was, or was not the Son of God? That isn't a scientific argument, but spiritual. Applying science to it doesn't do the argument justice at all. Its comparing an apple to musical note. They're different concepts. You can try to use one to explain the other, but they're different realms of discussion.

If god is not empirical and cannot be observed, he should be treated as the non-entity he is.  IE: his fanclub should stay far away from any issue involving REAL people doing REAL things.  not fictional beings doing fictional things.  

I recommend mulling over the consequences of this stance for a minute or two. One possible angle of attack would for example be; what would this philosophy mean for law enforcement?