first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?
You need to learn what "proven" means before you use it in a sentence, hypocrite.
Yes. Prove all the science for yourself, or else take it on faith that some other scientist or group has proven it, you know, like believing in a religion.
Science isn't something that's proven. This is your fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Science is a 'method' of applying a logical process to understanding the world. Science simply utilizes certain logical tools while disposing of others that are irrelevant to empirical study. Religious people such as yourself must also use logic -- the same logical language from which yields the scientific method --
to analyze the Bible and form your own interpretations thereof.
In other words, the only difference between scientists and your self in this debate is that scientists abide by a logical system of reasoning *which has clearly defined boundaries* so that they know which conclusions are permissible and which aren't. You, on the other hand, talk about science as if it draws from a set of entirely different logical rules. This is simply wrong. Logic is what it is and everyone uses it, but scientists simply use a more contained system of logic, i.e. logic that is applied *to observations and evidence* in order to make sense of it all. While scientists know where the boundaries are, you have no freaking clue where the boundaries of logic are, and you constantly overstep those boundaries and wander into the realm of literal nonsense ("nonsense" = does not make sense).
By the way, what do you think about the Pope's recent declaration in support of evolution, which is essentially a declaration in support of the scientific method?