Science Refutes God

[The Grand Nudger]

Is there any pressing reason that such a god (that, to be blunt, annihilates the very notion of a god all on it's own) needs be disproven? Still, you haven't actually presented such a god (even in this non-descript form) as our very human flights of fancy aren't exactly unknown to science, or impervious to it's interrogation. Have you ever pondered over how difficult it would be to actually come up with a concept of a god that could not -even in principle- be subject somehow to some sort of observation or test? You, as a creature living within a world composed (if not only, at least very much crowded by) of material, testable things. Working out this conjecture with (at least) the aide of your very material and very much testable wetware- cradled in your very material and very testable hardware. All of your frames of reference and conception erected from all of this material testable stuff.......well, you can see why I might be skeptical that we're actually as competent at creating an unsolvable "immaterial" riddle as you seem to think we are. What I do see, is that you feel that if we are made to accept a bare assertion of something, and play by the rules of the one asserting it, that this somehow makes the problem intractable. It does not. We do not have to accept any assertion, we do not have to play by the rules that are dictated to us, this is not just a matter of logic or reason, but of empirical observation and repeated tests that can elaborate upon just why we do not have to wander so blindly in the dark just because another talking animal insists we do so.