Quote:I do agree that I'm guilty of straw manning a bit. I also completely understand that your definition of God is at its essence, something that is not observable. However, how do you know that this definition is the correct assessment?It doesn't matter if my definition is correct, I already addressed that. My contention was that using my definition, you cannot use science to determine the existence of that God. If you have a God that is observable and testable, then evidently there may be ways of determining whether it exists through science, but it still wouldn't say anything about the other definition.
God is defined differently by many societies, regions, and religions. Not one of the dictionary definitions I looked up had any mention of being unobservable and untestable by nature.
So yes, to put it this way, if we had two definitions of God:
1) A being that created the universe and resides in the non-temporal realm.
2) A being that created the universe.
The 1st definition is a more strict definition of a God, and this definition defies scientific evaluation. The 2nd definition however is open to interpretation, and science could be used to evaluate it as an existence claim. If the 2nd claim is found to be true or false by science, it still says nothing about the 1st claim unless something in the 2nd claim contradicted the 1st. Nothing does in my example (they both have a claim to have created the universe, but nothing prohibits them from doing that together, etc).
