Science cannot disprove God

Dear Pro Thanks for the follow through. Between beers, bars and burgers this is an interesting claim, because it has a built in pre-supposition that seems un-falsifiable, but when examined yet again to its conclusion is very easily shown to be false. Some of these are quoted from the previous debate. Going forwards Shifting the burden of proof Science cannot disprove god vs Science cannot prove Gods non-existence.” “Science cannot disprove god” is not a double negative. Very simply “A cannot disprove x.” Which is silly because we use do this all the time, did aliens make the sun rise, and was god needed for evolution to occur. What you doing by saying Science cannot prove Gods non-existence is shifting the burden of proof. And as you are arguing everything after from that point you have not a) made any claims that further the original claim. B) Have not provided an argument for the original claim. Black Swan Fallacy of argument 1. Science cannot disprove god. I have never seen an answer to the question so one must not exist. Just because it hasn’t yet, doesn’t mean that it will not in the future. 2000 years ago people believed Lightening, planetary formation and evolution were all unknown. However as the knowledge from science has progressed things went from unknowable to unknown, to known. They are now all fields of study. Argument from Ignorance or God of the Gaps Science cannot disprove god. What about Transitional Fossils? Though slightly different then Black swan, is God of the Gaps. Rather then I don’t know of any answer other than god, you have placed god into the tiny spots between what we know. There is a gap in understanding, be it a transitional fossil, the development of morality, the big bang, the cause must be supernatural and in this case god. However as Scientific knowledge has expanded the realm of god has shrunk to ever smaller proportions. - At a certain point our knowledge may push god out of necessity. Argument from Either Or One of these theories is not like the other. Gay pixies named bob who eat spaghetti did it. Even if science doesn’t disprove god, it can prove something else was responsible. I’m going to pay a little homage to Douglas Adams here and the Atheist Experience. Science may prove something else created existence like - possibly that self-replicating gay pixies named bob who live on the sun made the universe with the help of pan dimensional beings that exist in our universe as mice. If this is true, it negates God. – If mice did it, you don’t need god. The Shifted Argument Science cannot disprove an undefinable thing. How many ignostics does it take to change a light bulb? Even If you switch the terms you are still left with a number of problems. Could science ever disprove Gay pixies will the sun to rise, could science ever show that plants will the sun to exist so they have something to give them energy? This is the quality of claim that you are defending. IF you replace GOD with anything equally stupid as a concept, you can see the basic flaw in your argument even with shifting the burden of proof. Again your first claim Non-existence affirms that there is no observational evidence available Closet monsters, Smurfs and God are equally valid because you don’t ever disprove them So by following your logic with another subject, smurfs which are described as having the ability to hid their existence should not be ruled out because we can’t disprove them because science can’t examine every aspect of the universe? Again, you seem to confuse unknowable vs Unknown and confidence and certainty. Again, you’re coming from a pre-suppositional point of view. However let’s put this in to another way. When my son was little he would swear there is a Skittery monster (an omnipotent and all seeing monster by every definition that smelled of my grandmother) was in the closest watching him and judging him. This monster obviously by his description had magical powers and could teleport at will. Which is why when I open the door and put on lights, no monster. By going through the non-evidence, his burning body (no scorch marks in the closet), his giant wings (nothing disturbed), the smell of rotten laundry could be confused with a monster, however this self-described monster smelt like my grandmothers perfume. So again, no evidence showing him, however there is ample evidence that the monster is a logical, ration and fear based response of the fear of the dark, based off evolutionary creatures who see patterns where there is none. Using the scientific method we examine things (including concepts which are separate from the natural world) to see if these things hold true. Are you saying I need to go to every closet in existence to prove my son wrong? Science is a methodology, however it has debunked many supernatural things like homeopathy, pixies, loch ness, yet you claim special privilege for a particular closet monster concept. You also claim - To prove that there is no observational evidence, the observer would need to be both omniscient and omnipresent Besides that Omniscient is non-sensical (because you would also have to know two contrary things) like a round square. I don’t need to see all squares to know all squares have four sides of equal size. That’s the definition of the concept. Also by definition a square and circle cannot be the same thing. But this is what you’re saying with the god concept, a thing that breaks everything known to be true and has contradictory aspects exists and that it’s unfalsifiable. By definition something that is self-negating for everything else you’re claiming special privilege. That alone lets us examine the god claim in a naturalistic realm, the purview of science. So the original claim has not been addressed and the first two steps in your other claim have also been addressed, from which all your argument follows. So were back again to me rejecting the claim “science cannot disprove god”. to my response it has for other magical creatures . . .