Proof A=A

[tavarish]

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?

How would I define the observable and testable world? I would have thought that was obvious. Everything that can be observed and tested is in the observable testable world. It's a simple definition. Do we attain better ways of understanding? Yes, of course, and I'm not disputing that. Whether something was "deemed" unobservable is not the problem here, it's when something is "defined" as unobservable. You can't observe things that are defined in such a way to make them unobservable...by definition.

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

Errr...yes you can, unless you dispute my first point about science being a method of collecting knowledge about the observable, testable world. Do you?

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 non-empirical realm is by definition, non-empirical. If something is non-empirical, science has nothing to do with it. Science is the study of the empirical. How are you not getting this?

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.

Deemed, but not defined as such. If something is defined as unobservable, you cannot observe it. If you could observe it, you can be certain that what you are observing isn't what you thought it was, since if something is defined as unobservable it cannot be observed. This doesn't mean the unobservable suddenly becomes observed, but a new definition is needed in order to account for the new data. The old definition doesn't cease to exist though.

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.

I'm not discounting it on the fact that we can't see it now, or that I can't think of a way to do so. I never said that, and it's the original strawman you used against fr0d0. I'm scientifically discounting something that isn't scientific. It's the same reason we don't consider global floods "scientific", the same reason we don't consider psychics "scientific". God isn't going to be proved or disproved by science because science doesn't deal with the unobservable, of which God (or at least the God I am dealing with here) is defined as.

At the current point in time and scientific development.

No...by definition.

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 never said "at this point in time"...that's your strawman. I'm saying it's completely against the entire idea of science. You cannot observe unobservable things. You might contend that if science changes to allow the study of the unobservable (I have no idea how, but I'll humour you hypothetically) then we could prove / disprove God. However I would counter that this (a) wouldn't be science, and (b) would ultimately lead to anything being proved / disproved (as I could easily cite the existence of the FSM or the IPU) and claim they are scientifically valid.

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.

It's not a question of having "no idea", it's a question of it being a logical fallacy. It isn't a logical fallacy to travel to distant planets, it is to find a 5 sided square or observe and unobservable God. Again, you strawman my argument. I have never said this argument is based on our currently knowledge, but on the logical contradiction that is finding scientific evidence for a non-scientific entity.

I do agree that I'm guilty of straw manning a bit. I also completely understand that your definition of God is at its essence, something that is not observable. However, how do you know that this definition is the correct assessment?

God is defined differently by many societies, regions, and religions. Not one of the dictionary definitions I looked up had any mention of being unobservable and untestable by nature.

I illustrated in a past post that such a claim is a gigantic cop-out and at best an avenue to dodge questions by those who utilize rational thought and skepticism.

I'm pretty sure fr0d0's definition of God isn't the same as all other Christians, and those differ from other faiths in the world. How would you definitively state that a concept, embraced by many with varying definitions, can never be scientifically proven or disproven? Again, I'm not talking about solely the definition of " unobservable by nature", I'm encompassing the entirety of the "God" archetype in humanity.

What the discrepancy is, is that there is no objective definition of God that applies in all situations. If you defined God as "creator of the universe", those attributes would differ greatly from "transcendent force that intervenes in the lives of men, and that differs from the claim that he is "loving, moral, and jealous". Those are three claims within one religion alone that are not necessarily tied to one another, which need different criteria for observation.

I'm sure I'm rambling a bit, and I understand I shifted the point a bit, but I wanted to make the point more clear.

Here is my argument in a nutshell:

1. How do you define God?
2. How do you know that definition is true?
3. Can God have an objective definition?
4. Can God ever be observable and testable through scientific means?
5. How do you know the answer to #4 is true?