Atheism the unscientific belief (part one, two, and three)

[robvalue]

Jenny:

You still haven't defined what "god" is. You demand that science study something, and yet you can't even tell us what exactly it is you want them to study. I have no idea what you mean by "god", and I can only conclude that you don't either, besides some vague notion.

I'd like to know how exactly you propose god should be studied. The default position to any event is that we don't know what happened. We then follow the evidence and try and form a reasonable conclusion. The default position is not "whatever someone wants the explanation to be" and then everyone has to prove them wrong. That is employing the argument from ignorance, which I talk about in detail on my site here. If something is unexplained, then it is unexplained. That isn't a license for people to make up vague explanations like "god did it". What does that even mean? How do you distinguish between god doing something and a mega-toad from dimension X doing it? How would the results look any different from our perspective? Until you define god, I can only guess at any of this.

This is how science works If it didn't, science would be comprised of loads of random testimony and unsupported claims, and would contradict itself all the time. Most importantly, science serves to further understanding. What possible use to anyone is "god did this"? It's incredibly vague, does not actually explain anything and is just a roadblock to further investigation. No one is stopping you believing that god did whatever you want to believe he did, but science has rigorous methods, with good reason.

You've admitted, to your credit, that we have no reason to believe you really are receiving thoughts from god because we have no way to verify it. And that is the only evidence you have presented for this god even existing.