Resolved: Christian Faith and Reason and/or Science are Fundamentally Irreconcilable.

Thanks Con for what is turning out to be an enjoyable debate. That last argument was particularly an enjoyable read. I'm noticing a trend with my opponent, rhetoric is certainly being used in order to support his position. I'm find the substance of the arguments lacking however. In this round, I'm going to attack Con's last arguments systematically again. But, I'm not going to spend much time on them. For the most part, they are largely off subject, I will point out where they are wrong and then move on. I will use the last half of the debate to present my previous arguments that validate that the Christian Faith and reason/science cannot be reconciled. Con will need to directly refute these arguments in order to win the debate. He should focus his energy there and we shall see what holds. "Pro seems to believe that Hebrews 11:1 offers a complete definition of what faith means..." Con is the one who put forward this definition. I've made no attempt to define faith. I've used this Biblical definition to demonstrate that faith is unreliable, as defined by the Bible. I demonstrated this in my previous round, it hasn't been refuted, and I will give more support in the last half of the debate. In the following paragraph he objects to me using the Biblical (his) definition of faith to prove Christianity false and to demonstrate that faith can be used to prove to contradictory claims. The argument doesn't actually refute that point. Hebrews 11:1 claims faith to be, confidence, hope, assurance of things not seen. There is no mention of what is to support the confidence, hope or assurance of things not seen. If they aren't supported, then they can be applied to anything. They can be used to support any conclusion. This makes faith empty. A Christian might say, "well the Bible is the support for faith that we use." O.K. The Bible is a collection of stories, maybe true, maybe not. If we remove the stories, what supports the Christian's faith? Nothing. The Christian uses faith to claim the events in the Bible are true. The Christians uses the Bible to support their claims that their faith is grounded. Circular reasoning. Faith is hollow. We get to the Gospels. "...were written by 2 disciples and 2 early converts." Apparently Con hasn't done much in the way of New Testament studies. The authors of the Gospels are unknown. All books written in 3rd person. None ever state who is writing. The oldest manuscripts have no names on them. This isn't contested by Biblical scholars on either side. More to the point of the debate, it doesn't tell us how Christianity and science are reconcilable. Con speaking, "I have already explained that Hebrews 11:1 does not provide the definition of faith, so pro's case falls flat." It seems clear to me that Con is trying to escape from this definition. I don't blame him. But he is being a bit disingenuous at this moment. His opening argument, at the very beginning, he uses the definition of Hebrews 11:1. He starts off with it. He finishes quoting the passage and then says, "In other words, faith is trust in special revelation God has provided and in our salvation in Christ." Con seems to have no problem with the Hebrews 11:1 definition, begins by citing it, then endorses it. Now he's to "...Hebrews 11:1 does not provide the definition of faith..." Why is Con changing his tune? Could it be that when the definition was dissected the nature of faith didn't seem as strong as Con has thought? Con is free at any time to tell us what supports faith. He then goes about his appeal to authority. Listing may scientists who believed something or were Christians. Who really cares? This is an appeal to authority. Most importantly to the debate, just because scientist X believes religion X that doesn't mean the religion is true, or that the religion is in agreement with science. No point to spending more time on this Red Herring. I'm going to turn to the final half of the debate. I'm going to try and keep this portion simple. I will list arguments that prove Christianity and science are irreconcilable. If Con wishes to demonstrate that the arguments are false, he will need to show us why, instead of simply stating they are. Lets begin by turning back to the proposition. "Resolved: Christian Faith and Reason and/or Science are Fundamentally Irreconcilable." Reconcile means to bring together. I've argued they aren't, Con believes they are. I must show how they aren't. Con must show how they are. Faith, Hebrews 11:1, faith is CONFIDENCE in what is HOPED for and ASSURANCE in what is NOT SEEN. Science, a systematic method of acquiring knowledge through, experiment, observation, prediction, data, and evidence. Con's quote, "we need science to study the natural world, faith to study the spiritual world." Con acknowledges a divide. In order for them to be reconciled they must be brought together, that is what the word means. Lets see if they can. A1. Using Con's Biblical definition of faith. P1. I have faith that Jesus didn't rise from the dead. P2. I have faith that Jesus did rise from the dead. I've demonstrated that faith can be used to rule out the Christian faith, P1. If Con is to refute this argument he needs to tell us why P1 is incorrect while P2 is correct, both using faith. If he doesn't, the the proposition is confirmed. A2. Christian Faith claim P3. Jesus rose from the dead. This claim is claimed to have happened in the reality we occupy. Science studies the reality we occupy. Reconciliation requires science to be able to confirm this claim. If science and this claim cannot be reconciled, then the Christian Faith is irreconcilable with science. Why this isn't reconcilable claim. Science cannot conduct an experiment and cannot study data regarding this claim. Therefore the claim is irreconcilable with science, confirming the proposition. In order for Con to win the debate he must refute my claim. Con must show how science can address this claim. If he doesn't, the proposition holds. A3. Christian Faith claim P4. The Christian god exists Con speaking, "Science is the study of the natural world, faith is the study of the spiritual world." The Christian god is apart from the natural world. Therefore science cannot study the Christian god. We are trying to reconcile the two disciplines. Therefore they must be brought together. Science must be able to study the god and the claim that the Christian god exist. If science cannot study this, then science and the Christian claim, The Christian god exist, are irreconcilable. Con agrees. But, in order for Con to win the debate, he must tell us how science can study the Christian god. If he cannot, then the proposition holds. A4. Christian Faith claim P5. Jesus is the Son of God. Lets set aside whether Jesus existed, was crucified, and the body was missing 3 days later. Can science be reconciled with this claim? Science cannot study Jesus. Science cannot study the nature of his father. Science cannot be reconciled with this claim. Therefore, science and the Christian Faith are irreconcilable. If Con wish to win the debate, he must refute this argument. Con must tell us how science can study and be reconciled with this claim. I've presented four arguments that confirm the proposition. If Con is to win the debate he must directly refute the arguments. Tell us how science can determine Jesus is the Son of God. Tell us how science can determine Jesus rose from the dead. If Con can directly tell us how that can be done then the debate is Con's. If he cannot, then the debate is Pro's. Con tell us why A1, A2, A3 and A4 are incorrect. Address the arguments directly.