Science is the study of God.

It has become clear to me that my opponent lacks an understanding of both my arguments and the implications of his own. If one considers the resolution with his definitions, we get something like: "The study of what is studies to exist." OR "The study of what is studies to be." In other words, my opponent has seemingly created a rhetorical tautology. However, he has provided an invalid definition for "God." In the English language, it simply makes no sense to define a noun as a verb. God = exist. Coffee Table = stay. Book = read. Dog = play. None of these make sense. These are things the objects of consideration DO, not what they ARE. God a defined by my opponent makes no logical sense. My opponent also states that "If God "is" than science must be the study of God." and "Given that God "is"... Science is the study of God." These are all well and good, but don't allow one to actually evaluate the resolution. Before making an evaluation, there must be some properties assigned to God. It is as though I asked you to go find me a Sneedle and cut off it's hopflong as a trophy. You have no idea where to even begin. Now if I say that a Sneedle is a type of bird, and the hopflong is a large plume of feathers on its rump, it becomes clear what I mean. My opponent hat touted the notion that science can examine something without any idea what it is. Consider the following conversation with a scientist. Me: Go find me a Sneedle and run some tests on it. SCI: Very well - what is a Sneedle and how will I know when I find one? Me: A Sneedle exist. SCI: I'm sorry - what was that. Me: A Sneedle is. A Sneedle exist. Come on man - you study everything - find me a Sneedle!! Obviously, without any idea what he's looking for, the scientist cannot produce a Sneedle, regardless of whether or not a Sneedle exists. Without a clear definition of a Sneedle, it is impossible to locate or study one, and even if a Sneedle pooped on his head, he wouldn't know what it was because he as no definition of a Sneedle. So consider the following: Me: Hey Dr. Doofus - Go study and run some tests on God. SCI: You mean the deity God? Me: No - I mean exist. SCI: I'm sorry - what was that? Me: Good God man! I want you to study is! Exist! Go find it!! This simply makes no sense. *********************************** Again, aside from whether or not God exists, without any sort of descriptors, there can be no testable hypothesis formed about God, whatever it even is. Without a testable hypothesis, science can do no work at all. Consider: Me: Test this hypothesis: A Sneedle can fly 14 yards upside down before crashing. SCI: Very well - give me a Sneedle that I can test. Me: Oh I don't have a Sneedle. A Sneedle exist though - so you should be able to study it. SCI: I'm not sure what you mean by "A Sneedle exist," but perhaps I can make a computer model. SCI: Give me some Sneedle-esque properties. Me: Oh a Sneedle exist - you should know its properties - you study exist. SCI: Get out of my office you mediocre dunce! I'm tired of your nonsense!! No properties, no testable hypothesis, no possible action by science. ************************* I have shown that first, the resolution makes no sense given the terrible definition of God. If a proposition makes no logical sense, it defaults to False. Second, I have also shown that without a testable hypothesis, science cannot study anything. There is no formable hypothesis about my opponent's definition of God. Therefore science cannot study this "God."