Again, you provide no DETAILS as to how God is to be investigated scientifically. YOU HAVE NO IDEA how it could be done, just a wish it could be.
" Faith, like scientific propositions, must be capable of testing, or it is not faith."
Now you are changing the meaning of what I said. I said that faith is faith because you can't test your claim. Faith is BY DEFINITION a belief where evidence is lacking. I was not talking about someone else testing a person's faith, but the person with faith not needing evidence to believe what they believe. The idea that someone needs to test their claims before having faith in them is idiotic, and is what you said.
Now, it is clear you know of no way to scientifically study God. You were asked to put up, and you couldn't. And anybody who thinks that faith starts out with testable assumptions is not capable of having an intelligent debate on the matter.
Good day.
It can be, but that is not its fundamental meaning. It's primary meaning is "confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing." As such, faith requires evidence, just like science does. That is what I am talking about when I say faith must be capable of testing, just like science. But there are certain statements and assumptions that cannot be tested for their veracity one of them is as follows: "Science can only observe natural phenomena."