[Fester Chugabrew]

Because *God* is not testable or observable, or capable of yielding Himself to scientific tests.

Sort of like saying, "God is beyond the purview of science because he is beyond the purview of science." Yes, I see how you've got all the logic tied up there. How can you and your vast array of like-minded scientists say God is beyond the purview of science when you haven't done any work to deduce as much but only assume it? What makes you qualified to make such an assumption? Furthermore, what makes you qualified to speak on behalf of all scientific endeavor?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Sort of like saying, "God is beyond the purview of science because he is beyond the purview of science."

No, but it's exactly like saying that *God* is not a testable, observable claim. It's not a scientific question, as almost all but the tiniest minority of scientists and theologians agree. The burden is on you and your tiny minority of misfit scientists and theologians to show how God is testable and amenable to scientific study.

"What makes you qualified to make such an assumption?"

Again, as you are having a difficult time understanding this, it has NOTHING to with *qualifications*, it's about the logic of the argument. There is no such thing as Godometer; *God* isn't a part of science.

[RunningWolf]

Qualified or not, actually they (there several in there) make a very poor case for science/scientists.

Wolf

[b_sharp]

"Sort of like saying, "God is beyond the purview of science because he is beyond the purview of science"

Really? In what way?

It is more like "God can not be considered in science because God is beyond the purview of science". If this is the same as what you claim, then the following would have the same meaning. "God is beyond the purview of science because God can not be considered in science". Since the two statements have different meanings, your claim is wrong.