Proof A=A

[tavarish]

[/quote]

We have done such...you've just ignored it.

i beg to differ.

My evidence is this:

1) Science is a method for collecting knowledge about the observable, testable world.

How would you define observable and testable world? Would it be safe to say that as mankind progresses, we attain better ways of understanding the world around us? Do we not have ways of interpreting data now, that 200 years ago would have been deemed unobservable and untestable?

2) Anything that is not observable or testable is therefore not knowable through science.

At the current point in time and scientific development. You cannot make this assumption for any future developments.

3) God is neither observable or testable (due to his transcendence / residence outside the empirical realm).

Again, at the current point in time. This does not account for any future discoveries into realms we have yet to define and understand objectively.

The study of psychology, dream interpretation, and developmental stages and tendencies were once deemed outside the realm of observability, but appropriate venues for repeatability and observation were established.

Why would you scientifically discount something solely on the fact that we can't see it now and can't think of a way to do so? I'm pretty sure at one point in time the concept of flight for humans was deemed impossible, but within the last century, we have developed aeronautics and changed society drastically.

4) Therefore God is not knowable through science.

At the current point in time and scientific development.

You might argue that point 3 is invalid, since these attributes have never been observed for such a being, but this is of no importance, given that logically, such a being could exist, and there will be people who claim so. Thus, you might be able to change your definition of God to suit a material one (and as such knowable through science) but you won't be able to know the God defined in my argument.

It's not invalid. My argument is that I don't know if the existence of God (an objective definition of God, btw) can be proven or disproven using scientific means in the future. It's an unknown unknown. It would be dishonest of me to say "We can never figure out something just because it's outside the realm of scientific discovery at this point in time."

I should point out that the argument "science may one day prove / disprove God" is the same sort of argument as "one day we might find a 5 sided square". It is a logical contradiction. You can no more find a 5 sided square than you can prove / disprove God through science. God's inability to be proven / disproven through science is an inherent property of God, just as "having 4 sides" is an inherent property of squares.

The same comparisons can be said about those who looked at the night sky and had no idea that one day, we would be able to travel to those distant planets. At this point in time, it isn't possible to prove God. I completely agree with that. My entire argument was that it would be foolish to assert that we would NEVER find empirical, objective evidence to prove a God exists or doesn't. It is based on our current knowledge, and an argument from ignorance.