Replies

Science does not deal with untestable assumptions like the existence of a God.

It most certainly does. The claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena" is an untestable assumption in and of itself. Or how do you propose to scientifically test that assumption?

"It most certainly does."

No, science cannot deal with untestable assumptions. By definition. Otherwise, it would be a useless epistemological tool. Anything and everything could be called *scientific* if you could include untestable claims. It's understandable why you wish to change the definition of science, since your claims aren't testable. You are desperate to have your claims be called science, because you know that that will make your claims sound more prestigious. Yet you despise what science really is. If right wing post-modernists (as opposed to the more well known left wing types) like you succeed though, science will have the same connotations as *unfounded guess* and will have the same prestige as astrology and ESP. The prestige you wish to expropriate will have been destroyed. It will be a Pyrrhic victory.

"The claim that "science can only observe natural phenomena" is an untestable assumption in and of itself."

No it isn't. It's a fact. It's tested every time someone tries to introduce a non-natural, non-observable subject into science. Since these subjects can't be tested, and testing is a fundamental part of what science is, the proposition that science can only observe natural phenomena is supported each time this happens.

"Or how do you propose to scientifically test that assumption?"

It's a metaphysical reality. Science, by definition, does not deal with the untestable. No matter what you WISH science to be.