(March 3, 2010 at 7:03 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:(March 3, 2010 at 4:24 pm)LukeMC Wrote: 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.
Don't I also submit those aspects as testable proofs of god? I think you define inconsistencies where there is consistency. Where literalists falter is moving outside of the precise texts they're referencing.
@Tav my definition isn't just impossible - because in science it's just unreachable. My theology doesn't 'assume' something we're yet to know. Something 'unknowable' isn't ever going to be discovered.. or it wouldn't be unknowable would it? This is you still struggling to use the wrong tool.
No, this is you being dishonest as always. You're making the assumption that something can never be known objectively, then saying it can be known only through belief and questionable evidence. How do you know it will never be testable?
It's a cop out and an attempt to avoid an argument that you know you can't back up.
