Debate: is god true?
Side: yes, god is true

"Ahh, you are getting closer. The only correction I would make to the above is that science is not just any knowledge, it is specifically the knowledge acquired from the scientific method. And so if something hasn't or cannot be subjected to the scientific method then it cannot be considered science." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science  Science doesn't only apply to natural phenomena, however the scientific method does. Therefore the understanding of knowledge is not simply restricted to the testable and repeatable, that we have to follow in naturalism. If you have a more renowned definition then the source I quoted, I will need to see it. If not then this part of the argument should be put to rest. "That it is outside of what can be measured and tested, does however mean it is beyond science. The supernatural does not obey natural laws or explainable through natural phenomena. I don't understand why you so ardently insist on being wrong about this." I am not wrong, you are basing your assumption from the natural sciences that does not apply to all science! "I am the expert, trust what I say to you." The fact you don't know the difference between science and natural science, makes me doubt your so-called credibility. "No, according to real science. Naturalism says nothing about what is valid in science nor is it concerned with such."Give me a definition of real science. Quote a source for me to review. If not you are merely speaking on conjecture, in which you have no sources to equate your statements. "You did not convey any reasons, you merely postulated an unknown undiscovered method of testing foregone 'miracles'. Everything I have expressed up until this point explains why this would not be possible." It would not be possible in natural science. I was hypothesizing a way to study the supernatural sciences. You can't claim all of science, I have explained and cited my reasons. You have yet to cite a counter to my argument over what science is, and what naturalism applies too. "This is the problem with neo-evangelistic movements, they're always trying to use science to "prove" what they accept upon faith." This is not the case at all. We use the sciences to back up the Biblical accounts of different phenomena related the naturalistic methods. This statement you made is a weak generalization at best. "As is usually the case, it goes in one ear, and out the other." This feeling is mutual. "Or you are simply in denial, that some of the things you believe cannot be supported by science." By natural science no, but like I have said not all science is based on naturalism. "Back to the discussion. Now whether these people all actually saw what they believe they saw, or whether there is some grand illusion created by their own minds, either way it is something worth being studied." Yes it certainly can't be ignored. "There are defense mechanism programed into our minds, that have helped us survive for over 2 millennium, but as a result distort our perceptions of reality. One of these being anthropomorphism." Please expand on your theory. "The oldest of them being Vedic Hinduism. This being supported by actual historical evidence." What is this evidence? Please list a source. Luke 3:23-38 "Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli, 24 the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, the son of Melchi, the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph, 25 the son of Mattathias, the son of Amos, the son of Nahum, the son of Esli, the son of Naggai, 26 the son of Maath, the son of Mattathias, the son of Semein, the son of Josech, the son of Joda, 27 the son of Joanan, the son of Rhesa, the son of Zerubbabel, the son of Shealtiel,5 the son of Neri, 28 the son of Melchi, the son of Addi, the son of Cosam, the son of Elmadam, the son of Er, 29 the son of Joshua, the son of Eliezer, the son of Jorim, the son of Matthat, the son of Levi, 30 the son of Simeon, the son of Judah, the son of Joseph, the son of Jonam, the son of Eliakim, 31 the son of Melea, the son of Menna, the son of Mattatha, the son of Nathan, the son of David, 32 the son of Jesse, the son of Obed, the son of Boaz, the son of Sala, the son of Nahshon, 33 the son of Amminadab, the son of Admin, the son of Arni, the son of Hezron, the son of Perez, the son of Judah, 34 the son of Jacob, the son of Isaac, the son of Abraham, the son of Terah, the son of Nahor, 35 the son of Serug, the son of Reu, the son of Peleg, the son of Eber, the son of Shelah, 36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, 37 the son of Methuselah, the son of Enoch, the son of Jared, the son of Mahalaleel, the son of Cainan, 38 the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God." This is the genealogy of Jesus Christ, which dates back over 6,000 years. So the actual practice of Judaism might not be as old, but the worship of the same God is older. "Exorbitant? You are expanding your vocabulary! Glad to hear it." This little statement intrigued me. Who are you to comment on one's vocabulary. So I did a little research on you. I found out that you are in the National Guard, well let me thank you for your service. As a veteran myself, four years active duty and two deployments to Iraq. I am curious about your MOS? I was a 19K Armor Crewman on a M1A2 SEP tank. I didn't see to where you had been deployed, but be safe over there. During my two deployments we conducted combat missions everyday, and I earned my gold spurs (1st Calvary Division) as well as the CAB (combat action badge). My question is, why are you enlisted when you have a post graduate degree? This seems very strange that you would not be an officer. Even if you earned it after you enlisted wouldn't you want to go from green to gold? Now I am going to be crass here, but where does a "nasty girl" get off commenting on my vocabulary. No offense (but feel free to be offended), I think you are full of BS. My mind won't change until I see some credentials. In the mean time, I would suggest you put the "weekend warrior" attitude to rest. So, back up your BS. Where's the proof of your expertise.