It makes no sense to ask for scientific evidence for Gods existence.

Thank you for accepting the challenge of this debate. I decided on the four round debate as the first round is consumed by generalities and introductions. I find the most value in debates to narrow the terms material to the debate by definition and leaving the other terms in the most general interpretation. Thus I attempted to narrow the definition of "scientific evidence" and I left God undefined as I do not consider the particular definition material to the debate, except for the inclusion of the notion of supernatural. Since in your introduction you expanded the concept of scientific evidence, I will attempt to respond to it and I see no additional difficulty to citing of particulars for God. 1) Creationism vs. Evolution …..As I view this argument, we have the scientific theory of evolution that shows the slow development of species and shows that they are all related. Evolution does not show the mechanism for the divergence of species nor how life itself began. However as a theory, Evolution enjoys the esteemed position that its explanations for what it covers have been proven true by rigorous standards. Thus, the thesis of Creationism has room to explain how the exceptions to theory could have occurred and this is substantiated by pre-scientific knowledge from the ancients. A) Scientific evidence could someday fill in the gaps of theory, but the thesis would gain no value unless the science proves that it was impossible for nature to accomplish these tasks. In that event, even though the thesis gains indirect substantiation by the failure of the naturalistic explanation, the theory remains as a failure for scientific proof of God. That is, that absence of scientific proof does not constitute supernatural proof. B) It makes no sense for Christians to disprove a scientific theory to further their religious beliefs. As you put it "…it is nonsense to try to force supernatural into science, as the two do not mix…". Proving or disproving a theory should be done for the sake of truth. Though the motivation may come from the perception of contrary concepts, the goal should be that of finding truth whatever that truth may be. Even if science discovers that the mechanisms that caused life to appear and species to diverge have naturalistic explanations, this does nothing to disprove the thesis of Creationism. They are not contradictory. There is no need to disprove Evolution as it does not stand in the way. 2) "Jesus is god." ….There are two suppositions to this statement. That there was a historical person and that he had a supernatural connection. A) The historical documentation of his existence, though substantiated by science, remains as historical evidence. B) That he had a supernatural connection is beyond science. Again, though there may be no natural explanations for the events that were documented, the lack of scientific proof or theory does not provide scientific evidence. 3) Let us consider investigating supernatural phenomena today, as "…miracles…". A) Science may play the secondary role of substantiating the validity of documentation of some sort of miracle, but can do nothing to prove or disprove the miracles. Even though we may have a video tape of an apparition and objects moving, this constitutes documentation and evidence, but not proof nor scientific evidence. 4) As for "…you miss the point in which people ask for scientific proof." I have been presented with quantum theory as a model for proof in my last debate. 5) Finally, in your last paragraph, you bring forth the psychological value of "sense" in seeking scientific evidence as that it would facilitate "belief". You are expounding the expanded sense of "sense" to include in it a subjective rendition. A) It makes no sense to seek scientific proof for the supernatural as it is by definition beyond the science of the natural world. The seeking of scientific evidence is a failure of understanding the nature of science and its limits. Thus for an analogy, it made sense to doctors a couple hundred years ago to bleed people to cure their ills, but makes little sense today. Even though scientific theory could be expanded by hypothesis to include a supernatural realm, the availability of scientific evidence would remained constrained by the relationship. B) As for "…logical people not believing…" ….If one considers the overwhelming documentation and testimony for spiritual existence, whereupon the only logical conclusion is that there must be some sort of supernatural existence, these people are not thinking logically. Thus, ‘not believing' as well as ‘believing' must have as primary, a spiritual driver and ignorance as the secondary driver. Science will do little to change individual beliefs. The two diverse groups make no sense to each other. To summarize: The supernatural realm is beyond the reach of causes evoked by the natural world. The reasons scientific evidence is demanded is because of either ignorance of science or spiritual misleading. Though this is an explanation for the demands, it does not make sense to "bleed the sick to cure the disease".