God can never be disproved officially and scientifically.

The pro, I, can't emphasize enough that I'm not trying to prove God's existence (something God of the gaps attempts to do). I'm arguing that it is and will be impossible to disprove God. To prove something and to prove that something's undisprovable are different. There's such a difference between the two concepts: the subject (e.g.) can indeed be neither proved nor disproved forever. This discussion should only consider the 'disprove' side. whether you have done so before, please remember to keep this in mind the further discussion. con: "it's not that science will have an experiment proving god is no longer part of our equation of explaining the unexplainable but rather the more we find out about our universe the more "god of the gaps" will close." *to fully close the gaps (thus to disprove God), the unexplainable will has to be explained.* (important) Unlike before (because of which you'll see why you can't use past event to rationalize your claim in the future), scientists actually have logical and scientific proof* (important) that something will remain unexplainable to science forever. Let's use the previous planck length example. planck length has a scientific meaning and definition that observation, measurement or anything that can add our knowledge regarding a magnitude smaller than planck length is impossible. therefore, it will be impossible to 'dissect' and learn about the fundamental property of a string as in string theory. why is the speed of light 299,792,458 metres per second, but not 299,792,459 metres per second? the speed of light is actually calculated with vacuum permittivity and the vacuum permeability. but then how's vacuum permittivity and the vacuum permeability calculated? with formula that contain some constants. how are those constant calculated? if we keep on with this process, we will reach a point where the original constant is based on our observation of the universe, but has no explanation (and will very likely remain this way). con: "In time science will be able to give a natural explanation for virtually every single logical, valid, factual based, non-subjective question that can be asked" I can't say no to this. In the end of the day, no one can prove whether science will be able to explain every possible question. we can only wait till time to tell us the answer. However, science can't disprove God by simply explaining everything; science must also settle 2 more things: 1. their 'everything' really is ultimately everything and 2. they must also prove*** their explanation to every single question that can be possibly asked. while it is not impossible that science can provide explanation to the origin of the universe, it will be extremely likely that science will not be able to prove their explanation. To prove their explanation, they will have to gain knowledge of the status before the universe, which is something humans live in and depend on. To prove their explanation, they will have to gain knowledge to the status before time existed, the very concept that enabled science. I hope this is understandable to you when I say that without time in consideration, everything a human brain, or the brain of something that lives in the universe's spacetime, can think of will make no sense at all. con: "just because we don't have sufficient understanding of them now, doesn't mean it won't be achievable later down the road, as our history has shown thus far" no one can prove whether it (full explanation and proof) will be achievable in the future. it's the likelihood that matters more. unlike what happened in the history, science nowadays has shown in scientific knowledge, logic and sense that something will never be able to be proved. you can say that science has come up with an explanation to why something will never be explained. see the above example. No one can prove whether science can explain and prove everything in the future. we can only wait for time to tell us the answer. therefore, let's focus our discussion on the likelihood that science can do so in our further rounds.