Evidence for God - SPLIT STOPIC

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I for sure do agree with Inferno that when you have multiple forms of evidence it makes the case stronger. And THAT is one of many reasons Christianity is so strong. It has more forms of evidence than any other view on the planet. I assure you, we will get to the evidence, but it is absolute lunacy and an utter waste of time to do that before nailing down what counts as evidence and accurate definitions. I've had too much experience with atheists to waste my time presenting evidence when they don't even know what counts as evidence to professionals in almost every academic field on the planet. And the same is unfortunately true of Christians all too often.

No wonder you vomit out so many words; when you keep it simple, it is clear that you hold the stupidest position possible.

Christianity has more evidence than anything else, ever? How deluded are you? You can't even convince the FUCKING JEWS, and they believe in the same magic man that you do! The early Christians didn't have enough evidence to convince the Jews to convert within a few hundred years of the invention of the Jesus myth, so what makes you think the evidence is worth anything? And if it is so good, why can't you just fucking present it?

You can pretend that you're smarter than everyone else, because you've got a bullshit false definition of terms to cover your lack of logic and reason, but it only shows that you suffer from the arrogance of ignorance.

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

So I skimmed the massive post above but didn't see any evidence/arguments for the existence of a god. Apparently we have to read Pascal's Pensees to find this evidence TiL has been promising us. Why can't he just give us the most compelling evidence in this thread instead of sending us on a wild-goose chase?

Aught3, it is absolutely useless to talk about evidence when people are confused about what constitutes evidence. If for example, I didn't accept that observations and confirmed predictions were evidence (I for SURE do agree they are), it would be useless for you to talk about any of the evidence for dinosaurs existing. This is kind of the position we are in right now. Atheists don't accept as evidence what is actually counted as evidence on a DAILY basis WORLDWIDE in nearly all fields of academia as evidence.

We FIRST must what counts as evidence nailed down and THEN the definitions and THEN the evidence. Anything else is simply irrational and a waste of time.

To you and Inferno, on witnesses, more will be coming documenting my position on that...but if Inferno and atheists are right that witnesses don't matter or are the weakest form of evidence, then you have no way to prove that most of your own lives even happened.

I for sure do agree with Inferno that when you have multiple forms of evidence it makes the case stronger. And THAT is one of many reasons Christianity is so strong. It has more forms of evidence than any other view on the planet. I assure you, we will get to the evidence, but it is absolute lunacy and an utter waste of time to do that before nailing down what counts as evidence and accurate definitions. I've had too much experience with atheists to waste my time presenting evidence when they don't even know what counts as evidence to professionals in almost every academic field on the planet. And the same is unfortunately true of Christians all too often.

"actually counted as evidence on a DAILY basis WORLDWIDE in nearly all fields of academia as evidence." Which is?

Oh, I'll tell you what I DO know that is accepted worldwide in the scientific community: evolution is a fact, the earth is about 4.7 billion years old; the Big Bang model for the growth of the universe from the first moment in time, is correct;

You can move on from there!

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hey Joe, are you one of those atheist leaders TruthismisLife7 was going on about?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Oh, dear master Joe. What shall I do on this unholy day to destroy the chains of religion?

*bows*

Our king has been revealed!

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hey Joe, are you one of those atheist leaders TruthismisLife7 was going on about?

Leaders get paid, and/or have minions, right? I'm clearly not a leader.

 

[Thomas Doubting]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

It's Joe?! Makes sense.. he is the Lime Tord and he has a new gun!!

But back to the topic.. *yawns* next please! There goes my hope for solid evidence

Dude this topic here is about what we would accept as evidence, and several people said, the burden of proof is on the one who is making the claim, so give us your best shot and we will decide if we accept it or not. (Or do it in the debate but for fuck sake get over with it.. if you can't prove Yahweh to be the real deal there is no need to treat the Bible better than any other fairy tale collection, more the opposite)

Quoting from your old book and talking about other people's experience won't get us any further, in that case i would have to ask you.. can I use the "Alibaba and the 40 thieves" to prove the existence of the Sesame? Or would you actually want to see the cave and how it opens when i say "Open Sesame"? Or could I prove that it works with my door too by stating that i said "open door!" and it opened on its own? Even worse, would you believe me if i told you that it happened to my neighbor but i didn't see it, however he is a nice guy and you can trust him?
Or would you like to see it happening or at least have some plausible explanation which would be acceptable for you? I guess "FSM DID IT!" won't do the job.

Also.. Eye witnesses.. if the eyes were really cameras and we had the technology to extract what people observed, you could probably count eye witness testimony as solid evidence... simply attach some scanner and read the data.
The way it is in reality, there is too much speaking against people who claim something to take whatever they say for granted... especially something as extraordinary as miracles etc.

- There is no basis in reality which could support supernatural claims (to my knowledge)
- People misinterpret things easily
- People lie, really true! (although i might be lying)
- People believe other people who make shit up and spread their lies, although they think they are telling the truth.
- People contradict others, mutually excluding each other's claims even though they might not be lying on purpose
- People have hallucinations
- -insert more reasons why people suck as evidence- (i can't think of any more right now)

If you could eliminate those factors and if you could test their claims using the scientific method, we might be obliged to accept hearsay and eye witness testimony, otherwise.. bring better evidence and then you can use the witnesses and fairy tales to back it up. Uhm, i mean scriptues.

 

[nasher168]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

it is absolute lunacy and an utter waste of time to do that before nailing down what counts as evidence and accurate definitions. I've had too much experience with atheists to waste my time presenting evidence when they don't even know what counts as evidence to professionals in almost every academic field on the planet.

You forget that a fair number of the people on this board are professionals in academic fields. And many more of us are (hopefully) such professionals in training.

We. Know. What. Counts. As. Evidence.

Present your evidence. If it is sound, we will accept it. If it is flawed, it will get ripped to shreds, and the reason for it getting shredded will be explained. Simple enough. Shoot.

 

[Aught3]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Aught3, it is absolutely useless to talk about evidence when people are confused about what constitutes evidence. If for example, I didn't accept that observations and confirmed predictions were evidence (I for SURE do agree they are), it would be useless for you to talk about any of the evidence for dinosaurs existing. This is kind of the position we are in right now. Atheists don't accept as evidence what is actually counted as evidence on a DAILY basis WORLDWIDE in nearly all fields of academia as evidence.

What kinds of evidence do atheists not accept? I'm pretty sure spectral evidence would be out, any others?

 

[Prolescum]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Hey Joe, are you one of those atheist leaders TruthismisLife7 was going on about?

Leaders get paid, and/or have minions, right? I'm clearly not a leader.

How else do you afford that swanky phone and removal lackeys? The jig is up, sunshine, your cards are laid bare, your trousers are well and truly around your ankles. Busted!

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Aught3, it is absolutely useless to talk about evidence when people are confused about what constitutes evidence. If for example, I didn't accept that observations and confirmed predictions were evidence (I for SURE do agree they are), it would be useless for you to talk about any of the evidence for dinosaurs existing. This is kind of the position we are in right now. Atheists don't accept as evidence what is actually counted as evidence on a DAILY basis WORLDWIDE in nearly all fields of academia as evidence.

Dotree -
I am not an Atheist. I am a Pagan.

Give me any argument that I can not also give for the existence of Odin, and then I will concede your ultimate victory.
You see, I believe that the Third Planet is being watched by an eye in the sky that can't be stopped, too. And, when I get to the promised land I get to shake that eye's hand - but give me any single argument that cannot be placed up as for the Deity I revere, Odin, and the rest of the Norse Pantheon.

You have 4 posts to give me an instance where I cannot give a likewise instance for Odin -

This is the Challenge, and nothing else.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Dotree -
I am not an Atheist. I am a Pagan.

Give me any argument that I can not also give for the existence of Odin, and then I will concede your ultimate victory.
You see, I believe that the Third Planet is being watched by an eye in the sky that can't be stopped, too. And, when I get to the promised land I get to shake that eye's hand - but give me any single argument that cannot be placed up as for the Deity I revere, Odin, and the rest of the Norse Pantheon.

You have 4 posts to give me an instance where I cannot give a likewise instance for Odin -

This is the Challenge, and nothing else.

Checkmate!

 

[Mauricio Duque]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

- There is no basis in reality which could support supernatural claims (to my knowledge)
- People misinterpret things easily
- People lie, really true! (although i might be lying)
- People believe other people who make shit up and spread their lies, although they think they are telling the truth.
- People contradict others, mutually excluding each other's claims even though they might not be lying on purpose
- People have hallucinations
- -insert more reasons why people suck as evidence- (i can't think of any more right now)

People never tell the same story twice, each time a person tells a story, some detail changes, after the story passed many generations, it has litle of the original, its a new story; Short version: our memory suck.

 

[CommonEnlightenment]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Ok CLASS !!!!!!!!!

Do we now see the importance of falsifiability, and more importantly, the role it plays in trying to determine reality?

 

[Mauricio Duque]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Blind faith CAN be what you describe it as - but you don't need evidence against it for it to be blind. In any case in which the believer acknowledges that the evidence for it isn't sufficient enough, it's blind. E.g. it would be blind faith of me to believe with certainty that there's a magical midget called Johnny waiting for me when I die - as long as I acknowledge that there isn't enough evidence and that my belief is based in faith.

With this definition, this means that all faith is blind faith, to you?

For exemple: I have faith, faith that theres some planet out there with life, i cant say if would be inteligent life, or microscopic life, or even simple aminoacids, but i believe.

I dont have any evidence for that, iam using just the fact that life can happen, so, i have faith, blind faith, or none, in your opinion?

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

You know what TruthisLife.

People don't agree what counts as sufficient evidence. If they did, everyone would accept every claim in exactly the same way, on all issues. I accept evolution, you don't. The evidentiary standards I apply have been met, yours have not. The reason for that is irrelevent. I happen to contend the reason is that you have a cognitive bias in the form of religion that prevents you from objective assessment, and again we could agree or disagree on whether or not that evidence is compelling.

But you know what. Nobody gives a shit about that right now. All we want is for you to present your data. When I see it, I can decide if it has merit.

Until that we are just pissing in the wind. My contention, after reading thousands of bullshit sentences from you, waffling about how you have no time while contributing at least double the wordcount on this forum than anyone else, is that you have fuck all to offer and are simply seeing how long it can go on for.

So, present your data, and let ME decide if it's sufficient evidence for ME to believe. And of course, when it's been presented, presuming it's practical to do so, I will shred it for the drivel it is and you can then moan about how unfairly you were treated.

But you have nothing, zip, nada. You never had evidence, you still don't, you're pissing into the wind, you know it, and I can't for the life of me fathom what you hope to achieve here other than to reveal ignorance time and time again?

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I've listened to a lot of atheists, recently Aronra's "testimony" of becoming an atheist. If I only knew what he did and that was my only experience, it would be quite rational to become an atheist. I agree. I'd even say that his conversion from the blind faith/pseudo-Christianity he was in, might be positive for him. But, as we will see in the debate, compared to the alternatives Christianity has profound amounts of evidence in numerous areas (remember that it is crucial to compare hypotheses on the same question.

What verifiably accurate facts can you cite which are positively indicative of, and only concordant with -your brand of theism?

What I say Christianity is doesn't matter since I can't give anyone eternal life. Only God can. It's what God through his credible messengers defines as a genuine religion that matters. This definition will be coming soon in the debate I'm in with Inferno and it's not based on my opinion. Biblical faith is almost always based on significant evidence and has nothing to do with blind faith. This is something you have consistently misunderstood and misrepresented Christianity on (which is a typical straw man of atheists). It's not totally your fault since you are obviously so unaware of what the Bible says is genuine religion, but after you read my definition of Christianity in my 3rd post in the debate, if you continue to make that claim, then it will be an intentional straw man on your part.

The term faith has been mangled these days from what it meant originally"¦sort of like how the term gay has changed drastically. If you insist on defining faith as something that doesn't have or rest on evidence, ie. blind faith, then Christianity doesn't use faith. PERIOD. It uses vast evidence and then a little bit of trust in the evidence and the Bible's unrivaled track record of accuracy based on that evidence. I'll post an article a bit later on what biblical faith is.

The version of Christianity that you learned has almost nothing to do with what God says genuine belief is (as well as teaching the demonic falsehood of eternal hell and other unbiblical nonsense). I was just dumbfounded to hear your "testimony". Your description of Christianity compared to what the Bible actually says genuine religion is based on and the reasons I follow it is like someone describing in democratic North Korea to someone who lives in America. I follow Christianity for the EXACT same reasons I follow the scientific and historical methods. NO DIFFERENCE AT ALL.

As evidence must be a set factual [objectively verifiable and indisputably accurate] conditions which are only concordant with one available option over any other, then I contend that no supernatural belief system has ever had any evidence to support it. If they did, theism still has no evidence to indicate a deity, and Christianity has never had any evidence to promote itself over Sikhism, Hinduism, or any other mutually-exclusive competing belief.

What exactly do you mean by "a set of factual conditions which are only concordant with one available option over any other"? It sounds like you mean that all evidence must agree only with one hypothesis/theory...and only then can it be considered as probably or certainly true and worthy of accepting. If this is what you're actually claiming, then how soon will I see you throwing out the Big Bang, universal common descent, and numerous other theories which have some discordant facts that oppose them? The Big Bang (which I agree with and is a confirmation of biblical cosmological predictions) for example has the horizon problem and universal common descent has numerous problems and has been falsified quite a few times in both minor and major aspects (for a short list, check http://www.darwinspredictions.com) confirming Pasteur's prediction that it would be falsified and abandoned"¦unfortunately, it "evolved" lol quite a few times always hoping that it's newest version would find more evidence than the last one, but many "new ones" have failed also and keep on failing and being abandoned) while many aspects of creation science have been vindicated and are accepted by ALL scientists, yes, ALL. But, it has some problems too. By your standard if I understand you correctly, we have to throw out universal common descent, the big bang, creation science and 1000s of other hypotheses and theories out instantly regardless of the weight of evidence just because not all the evidence lines up perfectly with one side. There are certain cases where all the evidence is all on one side, such as the law of biogenesis (which is a pillar of creation science by the way and a law of science because there are no exceptions to it, PERIOD.). But, many do not.

If you are meaning that all evidence has to ONLY support one view before we accept it as true, then much science is done for, out the window, caput as well as much atheism. And to try to impose something on theism which you don't impose on atheism or science, etc. is a double standard. Double standards also if applied consistently will demolish pretty much every particle of science. Standards that cause these kinds of results aren't worth even the time you spent typing them.

You cannot hold the position you do and follow the weight of evidence. Those are mutually exclusive positions. You have to choose one or the other, and I for one choose the weight of evidence.

I will be documenting what is ACTUALLY considered evidence in science, history, etc. with actual citations from secular sources and examples in secular history and science. Rational thinking from ancient time has followed the WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, not only ideas which have all the evidence concordant with one explanation above any other.

I contend that no supernatural belief system has ever had any evidence to support it. If they did, theism still has no evidence to indicate a deity, and Christianity has never had any evidence to promote itself over Sikhism, Hinduism, or any other mutually-exclusive competing belief.

Well, I contend that about the only view on the planet that doesn't have any evidence to support it is atheism. But, this depends on which type of atheism you advocate. Those that make claims that there is no God have to reject voluminous evidence from history, science, legal evidence, philosophical evidence. But, this form does have some evidence on its side. Those that just profess lack of belief lose the rational case when there is even one piece of evidence, including even one significant witness since we must follow the weight of evidence and even 1 beats 0/no claims. Anyone who says there is no evidence for a deity is betraying the whole concept of reason and rationality as well as integrity. The only excuse for saying something so completely incompatible with indisputable facts is that they don't know what evidence is or they are lying.

D) You keep on trying to assert that because there are many religions we can't decide which one is true. Hmm"¦exactly how would this work in science? Since we have many hypotheses on a topic, we just throw them all out and say"¦oh, it's just too bad. We can't decide which one is right. Let's just wring our hands and cry ourselves a pity party since we have no idea what to do and we have forgotten that we have brains to use to compare evidence and decide which hypothesis has better evidence.

Frankly, Aronra, you should be ashamed of yourself for using such double standards (but it's somewhat understandable since you have absolutely no comprehension of what religious faith is, which may not be entirely your fault"¦man"¦I'm trying REALLY hard to give you all the benefit of the doubt I can here, but I'm just dumbfounded that any adult thinks that Christian faith isn't based on evidence.). It is no more difficult to compare religions than it is scientific hypothesis in many areas (a few areas we can't test, but science has things it can't test either but it teaches as true or likely to be true). Pretty much all religions have evidence they are based on. And nearly all of them have more evidence than atheism does. While there are many smart atheists who I respect and admire, atheism has got to be the most irrational belief I know of, since it consistently opposes the weight of evidence in science and history and has nothing better to offer than many of its rivals and it uses more blind faith than most of them as well (I even respect you Aronra for leaving the pseudo-Christianity you were in based on evidence. All who follow evidence and are trying to develop something better, whether you, Buddha, Karl Marx, etc. are worthy of respect no matter how wrong they may be.)

Christianity has ALWAYS had more evidence of it's truth and credibility than Zeus, Hinduism, Mithras or whatever and it has become a major religion precisely because it had fully empirical and rational reasons. It's precisely because of the EVIDENCE that it became so widespread so fast in its early years when it was being persecuted (there were other factors too later on, some positive and some wrong). NOBODY AT ALL would have followed it and risked their lives if it wasn't STRONGLY based on evidence. It was based on evidence such as what Bertrand Russell calls "evidence against interest" one of the most credible types of evidence that exists, esp. in history. We have many great thinkers such as Augustine, Aquinas, C.S. Lewis and so many others writing thoroughly reason based arguments for Christianity, but we have much better and more evidence now. Even in the middle ages, we have Pascal writing the mammoth 700 page Penses filled with quite a lot of evidence, very impressive for his time and nothing compares to that from other religions or atheists t in the world at that time that I'm aware of and he wasn't the only one writing things like that. Have you even read any of it? Most atheists don't even comprehend what Pascal's Wager was accurately let alone the whole Pensees. His Pensees and wager were explicitly arguments based on evidence and I can give you quote after quote after quote documenting that.

Btw, I live near a Buddhist temple in Korea which has sculptures of hell where evil people are being tortured (see my post above on why the Bible doesn't teach an eternal hell at all). Certain types of it might be closer to atheism, but it depends which of the 17+ types of atheism you advocate and which version of Buddhism you advocate.

 

[Squawk]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Why don't you just present your evidence instead of spending hours and hours telling us how you are going to present it?

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Squawk,
Nearly everything you've said is categorically untrue. If I didn't have evidence, I wouldn't be here. It would be stupid. I have never had "nothing" as you and others falsely allege. It's because I got straw manned to death as well having some personal emergencies to deal with that I never presented it last time.

While people may disagree on what is sufficient evidence, it is not my intention to deal with that topic beyond maybe a paragraph at most. What needs to be done is to what scientists and historians consider evidence in secular contexts and then show how evidence for Christianity meets exactly the same standards and often more on similar questions. It is a FACT that both many atheists and theists don't comprehend what counts as evidence. Presenting evidence before that is established is like trying to prove universal common descent when your listener doesn't accept that observations and fulfillments of predictions count as evidence. My next post will do this, but I do have many responsibilities in real life that make it difficult to respond as fast as I'd like as well as 100s of other people asking me questions and for help on different topics or who want to teach me something. I WILL show that Christianity has the most weight of evidence in many areas (not all, but many and in the most important areas), I guarantee you and I'll even bet you $300 that I can do it. I'd bet a lot more, but I don't have extra in my bank now due to lawyers, wife, etc.

It is atheism that has a cognitive bias against the weight of evidence in science, history, philosophy, etc. and usually for
--emotional reasons,
--because God has been misrepresented (by the demonic claim that he burns people eternally in hell)
--fear reasons and
--censorship reasons.
I've seen many cases of this first hand.

You will not be able to shred most what I say (and esp. the references) except by rejecting the weight of evidence or misrepresenting things, using fallacies, etc. I read some of your debate here..and your definition of evolution was absolutely appalling. Inferno's definition was FAR better(well, not really his, but the one he posted was). By your definition of evolution, pretty much all creationists are evolutionists. You have a LOT to learn Squawk, but it's also true that I'm sure there are many things I could learn from you. And if you and others would refrain from straw manning and false accusations, we'd get to the evidence a LOT faster.
Bryan

 

[Welshidiot]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

Squawk,
Nearly everything you've said is categorically untrue. If I didn't have evidence, I wouldn't be here. It would be stupid. I have never had "nothing" as you and others falsely allege. It's because I got straw manned to death as well having some personal emergencies to deal with that I never presented it last time..

While people may disagree on what is sufficient evidence, it is not my intention to deal with that topic beyond maybe a paragraph at most. What needs to be done is to what scientists and historians consider evidence in secular contexts and then show how evidence for Christianity meets exactly the same standards and often more on similar questions. I WILL show that Christianity has the most weight of evidence in many areas (not all, but many and in the most important areas), I guarantee you and I'll even bet you $300 that I can do it. I'd bet a lot more, but I don't have extra in my bank now due to lawyers, wife, etc.

It is atheism that has a cognitive bias against the weight of evidence in science, history, philosophy, etc. and usually for
--emotional reasons,
--because God has been misrepresented (by the demonic claim that he burns people eternally in hell)
--fear reasons and
--censorship reasons.
I've seen many cases of this first hand.

You will not be able to shred most that I say (and esp. the references) except by rejecting the weight of evidence or misrepresenting things, using fallacies, etc. I read some of your debate here..and your definition of evolution was absolutely appalling. Inferno's definition was FAR better(well, not really his, but the one he posted was). By your definition of evolution, pretty much all creationists are evolutionists. You have a LOT to learn Squawk, but it's also true that I'm sure there are many things I could learn from you. And if you and others would refrain from straw manning and false accusations, we'd get to the evidence a LOT faster.
Bryan

This melange is irresistible, Bryan, I'm sorry but I just HAVE to dive in with all the others.....

Bryan,....fellow human,.....WHEN are you going to stop telling us that you WILL provide proof/evidence/killer arguments, and actually get around to DOING IT?

 

[TruthisLife7]

Re: What evidence would you accept?

I've had much experience with atheists, and as long as they accept the presuppositions of methodological naturalism or similar things as legitimate instead of the a priori fallacies they are, it doesn't matter how many credible witnesses theism has, or how many observations, or how many confirmed predictions (we have many of all of these), it's just discarded for reasons of bias. So, this is the absolutely crucial and essential first step, getting rid of biased presuppositions. If an atheist or theist has biased presuppositions like this, it's really difficult if not impossible for them to see that the other side actually has evidence and to be really truly objective.

Also, some evidence and esp. documenting cases of what secular scientists and historians claim counts as evidence, I'm still compiling from the 1000s of files I have and the 1000s of pages I have written to different people on this topic to try to make it take less time for your guys to read it. I sympathize with all who have little time. I could instantly post books upon books"¦but, want to try to make it as short, but as thorough as possible with the best evidences. To do that, I'll probably need to stop posting on other pages and focus mostly on the debate. So, I apologize if I can't answer everyone's questions all the time. Figure out a way to clone me and I'll do it, I guarantee it. Most I've answered numerous times before. There may be couple challenges of atheists to religion that I don't know how to answer yet"¦but it's very rare that I hear any.

For some who may not have seen this, it's very important. I personally reject all presuppositions for any theory or worldview, whether atheist or theist. I think these make the two camps incommensurable as Dr. Thomas Kuhn wrote. Here's one reason of many why we shouldn't presuppose methodological naturalism:
-------
One of philosopher Robert Pennock's arguments for methodological naturalism (which rules out evidence for design in nature in principle, because it cannot be considered) is that "we cannot control the supernatural":
"Experimentation requires observation and control of the variables. We confirm causal laws by performing controlled experiments in which the hypothesized independent variable is made to vary while all the other factors are held constant so that we can observe the effect on the dependent variable. But we have no control over supernatural entities or forces; hence, these cannot be scientifically studied."

Dr. Bradly Monton (http://spot.colorado.edu/~monton/Bradle ... /Home.html), author of Seeking God in Science: An Atheist Defends Intelligent Design (Broadview Press, 2009), replies,
"For the moment, let's grant experimentation requires observation and control of the variables. A problem arises when Pennock attempts to infer that, because we have no control over supernatural entities or forces, these supernatural entities or forces cannot be scientifically studied. What Pennock is ignoring is the distinction (standardly made in philosophy of science) between experimental science and historical science.

Consider paleontology: what scientists who are engaging in this practice are doing is making observations and drawing inferences based on those observations. We can't do a controlled experiment to determine whether the dinosaurs died out as the result of an asteroid impact, we can't vary an independent variable while holding all other factors constant. Nevertheless, we can make lots of observations in the world (of dinosaur bones, geological strata, asteroid craters, and so on) and we can make scientific inferences on the basis of these observations. Also, consider cosmology: we can't do a controlled experiment to find out whether the universe started with a big bang, but we can make astronomical observations and make scientific inferences on their basis. I conclude that we can scientifically study aspects of reality that we can't experimentally control. Thus, it doesn't follow from the claim that since we have no control over supernatural entities that we can't study them." (p. 67)
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/bradley-monton-on-methodological-naturalism-and-control-of-the-supernatural/
-----
If you rule out what you don't like a priori, well, that's your right. But, I'm going to strongly differ that that is rational or objective in any way for both atheists and theists and I'm going to present evidence based on this philosophy that nobody gets to assert or presuppose that their view is right. NOBODY.

Simply, if we can study dinosaurs, string theory and multi-verse using science, then we can also study the Divine using science. To rule out the study of anything in science and history that has witnesses, observable aspects or testable predictions as the Bible, God and creation science as well as universal common descent indisputably ALL DO have, is part of dumbing people down and enforcing dogma and presuppositions over science, evidence and fact.