Prove that science can't prove god

[The Duke of Vandals]

Science is capable of investigating any unknown that isn't a subjective question. Anything that's not like, "Was that a good ballgame?" or "Is this a nice day?" is a scientific question. Anything that either exists or doesn't exist, like god, is the province of science.

Now, we've all read over and over that theists believe science can't prove or disprove god. This is false. "God exists and created the universe" is a scientific hypothesis (a false one).

Issue for debate: If you are a theist who claims science cannot be used to prove god, then prove it. Prove that science cannot prove god.

Be sure you don't confuse a shortcoming of technology with a shortcoming of science.

[Beto]

I have nothing more relevant than what I already pointed out, so more opinions on the logical validity of this analogy are appreciated.

[Cathar1950]

Are you talking about writing on ravens as the subject or writing on ravens like you would on a piece of paper?
I have some great psychology and social psychology books that were scientific.
Some subjective realms that are subconscious may appear as something else for reasons not understood such as conditioning. One of the values science is the productive discovery of how our minds experience and conceptions can be fooled or shaped. Even our subjective experiences are shaped and formed by the world of meaning and culture. Religious experiences are often claimed to be experiences of the beyond which is not verifiable yet most seem to be perfectly explainable as human constructs.
Any concept of God has to be grounded in our experiences or we would not be able to even experience them. Everything seems to be analogy and metaphor hopefully rooted in out experiences that can't helped but be shaped our personal experiences within our cultures, meaning and language. Eve our experiences are shaped by by the context as well as the feelings.
How do we talk about that which is beyond our experiences? How is God outside of time and what could it even mean?

[Beto]

Are you talking about writing on ravens as the subject or writing on ravens like you would on a piece of paper?
I have some great psychology and social psychology books that were scientific.
Some subjective realms that are subconscious may appear as something else for reasons not understood such as conditioning. One of the values science is the productive discovery of how our minds experience and conceptions can be fooled or shaped. Even our subjective experiences are shaped and formed by the world of meaning and culture. Religious experiences are often claimed to be experiences of the beyond which is not verifiable yet most seem to be perfectly explainable as human constructs.
Any concept of God has to be grounded in our experiences or we would not be able to even experience them. Everything seems to be analogy and metaphor hopefully rooted in out experiences that can't helped but be shaped our personal experiences within our cultures, meaning and language. Eve our experiences are shaped by by the context as well as the feelings.
How do we talk about that which is beyond our experiences? How is God outside of time and what could it even mean?

While I appreciate the insight I was actually asking what you think is the logical validity of sfs's analogy:

"Since you like analogies, an appropriate one would be a novelist who does not wish to have his characters prove that he exists. Would you agree that it is impossible for characters in such a novel to prove the author's existence?"

He doesn't accept my response that his analogy is weak and a logical fallacy by the same name, and I presented the raven analogy as an example. What do you think?

[Cathar1950]

Are you talking about writing on ravens as the subject or writing on ravens like you would on a piece of paper?
I have some great psychology and social psychology books that were scientific.
Some subjective realms that are subconscious may appear as something else for reasons not understood such as conditioning. One of the values science is the productive discovery of how our minds experience and conceptions can be fooled or shaped. Even our subjective experiences are shaped and formed by the world of meaning and culture. Religious experiences are often claimed to be experiences of the beyond which is not verifiable yet most seem to be perfectly explainable as human constructs.
Any concept of God has to be grounded in our experiences or we would not be able to even experience them. Everything seems to be analogy and metaphor hopefully rooted in out experiences that can't helped but be shaped our personal experiences within our cultures, meaning and language. Eve our experiences are shaped by by the context as well as the feelings.
How do we talk about that which is beyond our experiences? How is God outside of time and what could it even mean?

While I appreciate the insight I was actually asking what you think is the logical validity of sfs's analogy:

"Since you like analogies, an appropriate one would be a novelist who does not wish to have his characters prove that he exists. Would you agree that it is impossible for characters in such a novel to prove the author's existence?"

He doesn't accept my response that his analogy is weak and a logical fallacy by the same name, and I presented the raven analogy as an example. What do you think?

Interesting, I like the image and I am still thinking about the analogy.
I always liked the one with Mark Twain's characters with a setting telling a story. Given even his name “Mark Twain” was made up from his experience so was his characters, but are they real even if we argue about them. Concepts of God came from stories, stories grounded in a people's experience that read them before.
I dismiss Plato's ideas as if they were somehow superiority to reality where a sense of dualism clouds the issues and reality should be closer and matter.
In your analogy even the writer is fictional.
I think an analogy where your fish have to prove you exist might be closer.
But I like the imagery.
I like the question and think it is more then an analogy.

[BeHereNow]

Duke If you are a theist who claims science cannot be used to prove god, then prove it. Prove that science cannot prove god.

What am I missing here?

Christians who believe in the apocalypse and second coming of Christ certainly believe science will be able to prove the existence of god. They certainly believe god will make his presence known to believers and skeptics alike. They have no doubt science will be capable of this. Other religions have similar beliefs about the future presence of god on earth.

The question you pose sounds to me like present tense (based on tone, etc.), but is certainly unclear.

If I am right, and you refer to present day existence of science and god and proof, then the question and answer changes.

Will science someday be able to prove or disprove the existence of biped nonhuman life on another planet within our galaxy? Few things are certain, but I have little doubt that someday science will be able to do that.

Can science prove today the existence or nonexistence of biped nonhuman life on another planet within our galaxy? What a ludicrous question, not worthy of consideration.

There are many things science will be capable of one day, but not today.
Is the fact that science cannot today prove or disprove the existence of biped nonhuman life on another planet within our galaxy, some itty bitty evidence that there is no biped life in our galaxy except on earth? I sure don’t see it, but welcome any attempts to show me otherwise.

Is the fact that science cannot today prove or disprove the existence of god some itty bitty evidence that there is no god? I sure don’t see it, but welcome any attempts to show me otherwise.

I believe the OP’s time would be better spent on rephrasing the question for discussion.

[daedalus 2.0]

What always interests me in this kind of debate is that most Xians immediately go for the "we both can't prove anything, so we are at a stalemate".

The odd thing is that Non-Theist's have only human ingenuity and discovery at their disposal: the universe is slow to give up her secrets because of our limits.

However, Theists have an incredibly powerful entity that wants to be known on their side.

You would think it would be a massacre, not a stalemate, in terms of which side can provide the best explanation, or evidence.

[BeHereNow]

daebalus 2.0 However, Theists have an incredibly powerful entity that wants to be known on their side.

Some do, so do not. As a Deist, I believe there is no divine revelation, god has no wants or needs.

Some traditional Christians will point out that the human mind is capable of disbelieving virtually anything, regardless of the evidence, such as those who believe we never put a man on the moon. Possibly atheists are just a little denser than others in the area of god discerning. (Plenty of evidence, it is just being ignored.)

Some traditional Christians believe god wants to be known on his terms, which is by faith, not evidence.

[daedalus 2.0]

daebalus 2.0 However, Theists have an incredibly powerful entity that wants to be known on their side.

Some do, so do not. As a Deist, I believe there is no divine revelation, god has no wants or needs.

Some traditional Christians will point out that the human mind is capable of disbelieving virtually anything, regardless of the evidence, such as those who believe we never put a man on the moon. Possibly atheists are just a little denser than others in the area of god discerning. (Plenty of evidence, it is just being ignored.)

Some traditional Christians believe god wants to be known on his terms, which is by faith, not evidence.

Yes, point taken.
(Deism provides its own challenges, IMO)

[Cathar1950]

daebalus 2.0 However, Theists have an incredibly powerful entity that wants to be known on their side.

Some do, so do not. As a Deist, I believe there is no divine revelation, god has no wants or needs.

Some traditional Christians will point out that the human mind is capable of disbelieving virtually anything, regardless of the evidence, such as those who believe we never put a man on the moon. Possibly atheists are just a little denser than others in the area of god discerning. (Plenty of evidence, it is just being ignored.)

Some traditional Christians believe god wants to be known on his terms, which is by faith, not evidence.

Yes, point taken.
(Deism provides its own challenges, IMO)

I would wonder how they would know God's own terms.
The Process traditions such as Whitehead and Hartshorn would have God with aims, wants, needs and even being influenced by creation and history/time.
What is this "Plenty of evidence...just being ignored"?

[daedalus 2.0]

Yes, I too would love to see any evidence.

I often wonder what gives the Theist this extra quality to detect "God Spoor".

If you don't know what that Being is, how do you recognize its tracks and leavings?'

Its hard enough with a real animal, but with one that is from a Subnatural realm!

That is a special gift indeed!