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

Thank you to Con for the response. Now lets get down to business. I will begin this round with a methodical disection of Con's round 2 arguments. Then I will add an additional argument at the end. Con uses the Biblical definition of Faith. Faith, Hebrews 11:1, "faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see." Lets disect this definition. "Faith is confidence in what we hope for..." Confidence, I can be confident in anything I choose to be confident in, vague. Hope, I can hope for anything I choose to hope for, vague. Neither confidence or hope require outside support. To this point, faith has no support. It hangs in thin air. Faith equals unsupported belief. Lets see this in practice. I hope the Jolly Green Giant exists and I'm confident he does. Con wishes to assert that faith is a reliable way of knowing things. If this is true, then my conclusion, based on his and the biblical definition of faith, is a reliable conclusion. The Jolly Green Giant exists to equal degrees that the Biblical god exists. Further disection, "...assurance about what we do not see." Assurance doesn't equal truth, vague. I can be assurd of anything. "...what we do not see." Again, anything can not be seen, vague. We see that Con's Biblical defintion of faith, confidence, hope, assurance, not seen, can be applied to any claim. If faith can be used to support any claim, then faith isn't a reliable way of knowing things. I will use the Biblical defintion of faith to deny Christianity. If faith can be used to both support Christianity and deny Christianity, then the faith method is logically and intellectually unsound. Therefore it violates reason and science. The claim. I have faith that Jesus didn't rise fromt he dead. Translation based on Biblical definition of faith. I hope Jesus didn't rise from the dead. I'm confident Jesus didn't rise from the dead. I've been assurd Jesus didn't rise from the dead. I did not see Jesus rise from the dead. Conclusion, faith tells us Jesus didn't rise from the dead. Question to Con, is my reasoning and conclusion sound? Please explain. "Rather than studying the Scripture, science seeks to study the book of nature, with both created by God." This is nothing more than an assertion. No god has been demostrated to exist. Con cannot claim nature was created by a god before the god has been proven to exist. Science studies nature. "Great modern scientist such as Albert Einstein and Max Planck were also believers in God." Three problems with this comment. One, it is an appeal to authority. Two, it doesn't actually address how Christianity and science are reconcilable. Three, it isn't true. Einstien in a 1954 letter to philoshper Eric Gutkind, "The word god is nothing more than an expression of human weakness." http://atheism.about.com... This is the extent of Con's arguments in support of his position that reason, science and the Christian Faith are reconcliable. He now turns to address my arguments. He accepts my position that science and the Christian Faith are different things. He then loses the debate with this next comment. "The reason why we need science and faith is because they answer different questions. Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answers questions about the spiritual world." Lets spend some time on this. Reconcile (def. 1-3, not applicable) 4. To bring in to agreement or harmony, make compatible or consistent. http://dictionary.reference.com... In my round 1 argument, I state that science is the study of the natural world, god is apart from the natural world. Therefore science and faith are irreconcilable. Con agrees. Con states, "Science answers questions about the natural world; faith answer questions about the spiritial world." They aren't reconcilable because they are answering questions concerning different worlds. (assuming a spiritial world exists) Con makes this statement himself. The word reconcile, means to bring together. Con states they are addressing different subjects. Therefore they cannot be brought together, therefore they are irreconcilable. His statement is in agreement with my argument that the claim, "The Christian god exists" is beyond the scope of science and therefore the Christian Faith and science are irreconcilable. Con is in agreement. The propostion holds and is confirmed by Con. He than attacks my simple claim that the story of Job cannot be reconciled with science. "This is simply ridiculous." Didn't Con just acknowledge that science is the study of the natural world? A story written 800-1200 years ago, cannot be addressed by science. Listen to this, right in the middle of his objection to my claim that the Story of Job and science cannot be reconciled, Con speaking "...science is the study of the natural world. (correct, how can it address the story then?) The authorship of Job doesn't fall under its umbrella." Yes, my exact point. Con actually agrees with my point, dispite claiming it is "...a massive non sequitur." My point is that a Christain can conclude the Story of Job to be true or false. And that science cannot address whether the story is true. (Con is in agreement) Therefore, concerning the Story of Job, science and the Christian Faith cannot be reconciled. Con actually agrees with my point despite saying it is flawed. Con makes a weird morality argument. Con makes a few mistakes here. One, my point was that the scientific method cannot comment on the claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Con makes no objection to this point so the point holds. The claim that Jesus rose from the dead, fails on S4, S5, and S6. Science and this Christian claim cannot be reconciled due to those failures. This point remains and confirms the proposition. "Therefore morality and science contradict." We are discussing whether the Christian Faith can be reconciled with science and religion. I don't think a point was made here. If one was, I think it is off point, "...contradict" what are we demonstrating? Either way, Con didn't refute my point. Where we stand now. In my opening round, I stated that science and religion are two different things. Con agrees. In my opening round, I stated that science studies nature, religion focuses on the spiritual world, Con agrees. In my opening round, I showed how science cannot address the Christian Faith claim that Jesus rose from the dead. Con did not refute this point, the point holds and confirms the proposition. In my opening round, I stated that since science studies the natural world, and the Christian god is not of the natural world. Science cannot address this claim, "The Christian god exist." Con didn't refute this point. Con agrees that science cannot address the spiritiual world. The point holds, Con also agrees. The proposition is confirmed. I'm going to take this time to revist what faith is. Faith as defined by Con and the Bible is a very losely defined word or idea. If we can use what the Bible defines faith to be as a justification to believe anything, then we must acknowledge that faith isn't based on reason or science. If can use faith to justify contractory claims, this tells us faith is effectively nothing more than belief. Faith based contradictions. I have faith that a god exists. I have faith that no god exists. Both supported by confidence, hope, assurance and things not seen, faith. I have hope and confidence the Easter Bunny is not real. I have hope and confidence the Easter Bunny is real. Are these valid paths to truth? Hope and confidence. How can they be if they support contradictory claims? I will finish by asking Con a question. If I can use "faith" to justify two contradictory claims, how is it that faith can deliver us truth?