Replies

He has redefined Atheistic to mean saying God is outside the realm of science.

Nonsense. Atheistic is a characteristic that can be applied to anything that excludes God from consideration, whether it be science or public policy. Now, I understand you have hyperextended my application of the word as if I am saying science is making a statement about God's existence in general. If that is the case, then perhaps I should find a word better suited to communicating on your level.

For the time being however, I simply marvel at the notion that science can somehow, ex opere operato, exclude God from its purview when science a.) by definition seeks objective truth wherever, and however, it may be found, and b.) in this case assumes for itself judgment in a matter over which it declares itself to be ipso facto unqualified.

"Nonsense. Atheistic is a characteristic that can be applied to anything that excludes God from consideration, whether it be science or public policy."

No, it describes something that says that God doesn't exist.

"Now, I understand you have hyperextended my application of the word as if I am saying science is making a statement about God's existence in general."

Your application is a complete redefinition of atheistic.

"If that is the case, then perhaps I should find a word better suited to communicating on your level."

Try using a dictionary instead of making up your own words and we'll have a chance of communicating.

"For the time being however, I simply marvel at the notion that science can somehow, ex opere operato, exclude God from its purview when science a.) by definition seeks objective truth wherever, and however, it may be found, and b.) in this case assumes for itself judgment in a matter over which it declares itself to be ipso facto unqualified."

It excludes the untestable and the unobservable, because they are untestable and unobservable. The idea of God is just one small subset of a very large group of claims that science is incompetent to discuss.

Your point A is correct, and is why untestable, unobservable claims can not be science. As long as they remain untestable and unobservable, there is no way to make them objective. Point B is a non sequitur, as science is not unqualified to determine what the scope of it's inquiry is.

Let's say we all accept your notion that God DOES fall within the scope of science; now what? What is your research program to test this claim and to observe God? Just SAYING that God is within the scope of science means nothing. You have to SHOW how this can be done. Or else, any old mystical claim can be called *scientific*, and the distinction and prestige you so desperately crave for your claim by having it called *scientific* will disappear. Anything and everything could be called *scientific* then, and the term would lose all meaning, and all power.