(March 3, 2010 at 3:37 pm)tavarish Wrote: I've been on Christianity.com enough that I understand that "God" has many definitions, and most of them are in the realm of being testable, as the claims have to do with physical manifestations, historicity and unexplained events occurring in reality. Most Christian definitions of God can be thoroughly disproven. I can say, without the shadow of a doubt, that the Christian God of the bible does not exist. The purely unobservable and untestable claim that encompasses fr0d0's definition is a cop-out, since BY DEFINITION it assumes things we have yet to know in terms of scientific study. This is not a traditional or particularly popular Christian definition, especially not one of an evangelical that is based on a sola scriptura view.
The fact that fr0d0 just happens to latch on Christian ideology to his impossible definition doesn't make it any more valid or any less of a cop out. It's also in the same realm as the IPU or celestial teapot.
What I'm trying to conclude is that something outside the realm of Christianity; an objective definition of God. Based on current and past trends, I don't think it would have anything to do with being "unobservable" and "untestable", if such a definition was at all possible.
Then my greatest fear has been realised. I've listened to fr0d0 so much that my brain has accepted his version of theism as the mainstream O.o
All points considered, you're probably right and it was my mistake to assume "untestable" was part of the mainstream view. When I think about it more fully, yes, I can see that most definitions of God do allow for testability in that so many theists are willing to put forth their proofs (beauty of nature, cosmological argument, transcendental argument, human eye, green grass, etc). It was a mistake on my part. Though I suppose it could be said that I was merely subscribing to Adrian's idea of an untestable god as context for my point, and as such, my comments on the untestability of that god should still stand.
