Science cannot disprove God

Dear Pro and audience. Thank you for paying attention through this debate. I know is a length read and very dry. And I would like to assure you that my sons closet monster is not to treat this subject lightly, but to point out comparatively what Pro is defending and saying is beyond the realm of science. I hope you will stay through to the end and vote (either for me or pro). I appreciate your attention. “What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." – Christopher Hitchens. The perception of the double negative is not a distraction but shows the presumptive view of the whole argument and a flaw Pro's case. The original premise of pro is Science cannot disprove god. Can science disprove the closet monster, loch ness or gay pixies on the sun? I believe it can and has. And if it can dismiss other supernatural closet monsters why not one more? Pro- The intension of this debate is to examine the objective of science. Science does not have an intention, it’s a methodology. Google definition is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. https://www.google.com... Pro - What is the purpose of science and, specifically, when is science indifferent on a subject. Your applying that a methodology of examine the universe has an intent and personality. Which is not true and slightly biased. Science is not indifferent. You are implying that a methodology that is effective at understanding can’t understand something. Pro - We are only concerning ourselves with one question: can science disprove God. And so far you have not provided a why or evidence that it cannot, you have only restated, science cannot study it because it is un-studyable. To which I have shown you several logical fallacy’s, black swan, gaps and closet monsters. To which your response has been Pro - My opponent’s tactic so far has been to load his shotgun and shoot us with a canned version of your typical atheistic theological arguments against the existence of God. I didn't state there is no god. I’m' not sure that there is or isn't a god, I have yet to be convinced and seen no evidence that is not in some way flawed. It’s also not part of the debate, what pro is attempting to do is equate my personal belief with that of the argument itself. The argument is can science disprove God and by equating his lack of argument as my fault (a shifting of the BOP). However I would point out that pro is making a Subjective judgment, based on personal opinions, interpretations, points of view, emotions and judgment. My objection is based on logic and reason and analysis. What I’m doing is showing that there is a logical fallacy in your claim. They are not Atheistic rebuttals, there just effective rebuttals to a poor claim you have yet to provide support for. My closet monster has special privilege Pro - This argument is conveniently simplified to exclude the restrictions set upon A and X. To reform CON"s argument correctly: A, which utilizes observation and evidence, cannot disprove X, which requires that no observation or evidence exists. My son has a closet monster that is all powerful that cannot be observed and is powerful enough to avoid detection. Do you believe that the monster exists? Or do you have a reasons to show why no monster exist? This is not a straw man argument on my part, my object still stands. What you’re doing now is special pleading. You’re claiming that your closet monster has greater standing in being disproved by science because of the conviction of your beliefs and popularity and logical inconsistent and non-sensible assumptions. You would not suggest that the closet monster cannot be dismissed by the naturalist methody of study of science do you? I turned on the lights, checked the closet, I understand this is a common fear from all children at the same age, ext, ext. This is completely the realm of science, discovering the truth. You apply it to a number of supernatural claims, I just suggest that it may go one claim further. BLACK SWAN FALLACY You claim - There is no possibility that science will ever disprove God because it is, as I have shown, logically impossible. (the whole paragraph) You haven’t shown it, you just repeated it. Ad nausea. What I’m stating is just because PRO has not seen the answer doesn’t mean one may not exist. Again, you say something is unknowable, how do you demonstrate this. You presumed your right and went to circle logic. Just because its unknown doesn’t mean its unknowable, you have to show how its right. GOD OF THE GAPS - ARGUEMNT FROM EITHER OR You claim - Therefore, even if, in our omniscient state, in finding no evidence of God we would still be doubtful of his existence or non-existence. So what you’re saying is basically ken ham vs Bill Nye when asked what would change your mind, ken ham said “nothing” Bill Nye “evidence.” What you are claiming is we to stupid to figure stuff out, and that there is a limit to our intelligence. Which is fine, but I’m asking for proof of your claim. God of the Gaps and either or. . . . I see after reading your claim, the reason you think GAPS argument and Pixxies argument are similar is your presume your point of view is valid. One states that god is not required and the other has that pixies did it. They are completely different. This flaw in your perception does not equate to negating my rebuttal. Also again, unknown vs unknowable. I reject your claim of HE CAN EXIST Without Evidence. What you are arguing is “HE CAN EXIST WIHTOUT EXISTING” if he exists then he’s measurable in some way, and if measurable then he clearly falls within natural realm and study able. On a side note - Pro seems to fail to grasp the Law of non-contradiction and principle of non-contradiction. A is a circle, b is a square, two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive. If god possess a property of anything, be it all powerful or ageless or pink, that means he can be studied. Also I didn’t claim a 3 sided square was possible as pro asserts, what I’m saying is that I don’t need to have absolute knowledge to know a rectangle having all four sides of equal length is a square where ever in the universe, and a square and a circle are two different things that are not the same. I don’t need absolute knowledge, just enough to understand the difference between I don’t know and no one can ever know. Which is by the way what pro is claiming, we cant ever known and no method of understaning, evidence ever will contradict that possisiton.