Science cannot disprove God

Thanks for the round 2 arguments. I"ll provide my rebuttal below. OPENING STATEMENT My argument, outlined in ROUND 2, can be summed as the logical proof: Something that utilizes observation to prove cannot prove something that cannot be observed. This resolution is extremely simple. It was almost simple enough that I would have discounted it as hollow truism was it not for at least one taker. The intension of this debate is to examine the objective of science. What is the purpose of science and, specifically, when is science indifferent on a subject. This debate does not concern itself with the question of God"s existence. In fact, whether the resolution is accepted or not, the question of God"s existence will remain unanswered. We are only concerning ourselves with one question: can science disprove God. 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. He hopes that at least something from the mix will stick. Unfortunately, nothing does and most of CON"s arguments aren"t relevant within the scope of this debate. REBUTTAL GOING FORWARDS A) Whether the reworded resolution is a double negative or not, is of no consequence. The rewording is independent of my argument. In believing this to be a tactic to distract the voters from the merits of my argument, I am ok with keeping the original wording as it has no overall affect. My argument remains the same, although I will reword the first premise and the first conclusion for clarity. Premise 1 (P1): Disproving God"s existence affirms that there is no observational evidence available P2: To prove that there is no observational evidence, the observer would need to be both omniscient and omnipresent. P3: An omniscient and omnipresent being would be God P1 >> P2 >> P3 >>C1: Disproving God"s existence using observational evidence can only be accomplished by God. P4: Science requires observation, experimentation, and the scrutinization of evidence P4 >> C1 >> C2: Science requires God to prove God"s non-existence B) As to CON"s affirmation that my argument is "A cannot disprove X": This argument commits the straw-man fallacy. 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. BLACK SWAN FALLACY The black swan fallacy is not applicable to my argument. There is no possibility that science will ever disprove God because it is, as I have shown, logically impossible. CON"s use of the black swan fallacy here is tantamount to stating that we should not discount the possibility that a three sided square exists somewhere in the universe. A three sided square cannot exist, and we do not need to scour the universe to determine so. It is not logically possible because a square is restricted to having four sides by its definition. Similarly, Science is restricted to the use of evidence and observation. It is logically impossible to examine the evidence of non-existence without being both omniscient and omnipresent. GOD OF THE GAPS - ARGUEMNT FROM EITHER OR Both of these arguments are exactly the same, but CON has worded them slightly differently. CON argues that at some point, our scientific knowledge may push God out of necessity. While this is true, as our knowledge of the universe grows our ability to credit God may decrease. The gap that He fills would decrease inversely to the growth of our understanding. However, that gap would not close until we reached a point where we had an understanding of all things (become omniscient ourselves). Even at this seemingly impossible point, we could still not disprove God through scientific means. He can exist without evidence. Therefore, even if, in our omniscient state, in finding no evidence of God we would still be doubtful of his existence or non-existence. THE SHIFTING ARGUMENT - THE BURDEN OF PROOF Unfortunately science will not disprove any of those creatures, if we consider them to be above the laws of nature and essentially meet the definition of God. We cannot prove, by means of observation, non-existence; it is illogical. CON argues that this then then opens us up to the belief in any being, whether a smurf or closet monster, that arises from his mind. He asks, "Are you saying that I need to go to every closet in the existence to prove my son wrong?" This argument commits the affirmative conclusion from a negative premise fallacy. Remember, we are not working to prove the affirmative, that any being exists. We are only taking a stance on the limitations of science and specifically, of physical evidence and observation. Although science cannot disprove God, as I have shown, we cannot draw the conclusion the God exists. The burden of proof for existence falls on the simpler theory with fewer assertions, a universe with no supernatural beings. Therefore I would tell your son, "There has never been a shred of evidence found that supports the existence of a closet monster, therefore we should not believe that one exists." Thanks again CON. I look forward to reviewing your rebuttal.