volatile, now that you fought so bravely here I will demonstrate to you that your argumentation is nul and void.
You peddle a fine line of balderdash and piffle, Herzblut - and you haven't understood what I've written. Please don't make me do it again...
We? Who is we? If you mean science: don't abuse science for your purposes! Your implicit notion that science even looks into the problem of God's existence is fallacious!
Liar. BillieJoe argued that God created the universe. There are innumerable scientist engaged in finding out what did create the universe (and, indeed, if that is even a meaningful question), thus are engaged in looking into the "problem" as posed - that God fills the gaps we do not understand. To try and claim no scientists are investigating the nature of, or the first cause of the universe is
outright wrong.
Again mixing up incompliant areas, namely science and religion. A religious belief is a matter of belief, not reason.
True enough. But why should the question be beyond reasonable argument? You can say "I believe in God" all you want, but don;t be surprised when I point out the faulty logic this premise is based on.
Your "God does not exist" is by no means any kind of scientific hypothesis. Your fundamental flaw is believing that falsifiablity is necessary and sufficient for a scientific hypothesis. This is blatantly wrong.
Liar. Scientists are searching for materialistic explanations which support this assertion. BJ said "God created the universe", and that was his definition of God. Scientists are very interested in the creation of the universe. If you can provide evidence for the "transcendental, ever existing being who created the universe", the hypothesis is falsifiable. In the meantime, I'll chose to go with all those scientists who, with every passing year, make the gaps that God is supposed to inhabit smaller and smaller.
Evolution is a scientific theory, in contrast to e.g. christian belief.
True enough. We're really talking about deism in this thread, but of you want to get onto Christian god - a being who manifestly is claimed to have definite, quantifiable effects of the known universe and thus is very much subject to scientific enquiry (see: prayer studies) - go ahead. You'll only make my job easier.
No, because:
1. Three billion people or so hold that belief.
Utterly, utterly irrelevant, and a logical fallacy to boot. The number of people who believe something has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the veracity of that claim!!!!
2. It is not a scientific hypothesis. You are extending the well-defined framework of science in an excessive manner.
Liar. If God had any material effects whatsoever, then his existence is a valid area for scientific enquiry. If he has no material effects whatsoever, he is pointless and thus not worthy of consideration by anyone, theists and atheists alike!
As explained already, you are hopelessly wrong. I repeat myself:
1. "God does not exist" is not a scientific hypothesis!
See above. It most certainly is.
2. You cannot simply declare a hypothesis as falsifiable in science. You need to provide and exactly describe empirical observations that would lead to a different result, depending on whether the hypothesis is valid or not. It is scientific idiocy to say Hey, my "hypothesis" is negative, thus falsifiable! So - rush, rush and find me a counterexample!
BillieJoe determined God, for the purposes of this thread, to be "the eternal being who created everything". That this God does not exist is most certainly falsifiable - provide evidence this being exists, and the statement is falsified.
You are talking nonsense.
Since your reasoning is void from the very begining this conclusion is also invalid.
My reasoning is sound and logical. You're the one who need to deploy the argumentum ad populum to make your case. There are no logical fallacies in mine, I assure you.
Also from a broader sense that you make a fundamentally wrong value judgment:
one shall not hold a religious belief without scientific evidence for its metaphysical framework.
Here, you're mixing up again two non-compliant areas: science and religion. This is a fallacy.
The "non-overlapping magesteria" proposed by Stephen Jay Gould are addressed at length by Dawkins in The God Delusion, but I'll repeat what I said above - God is concieved as a being with material effects on the universe. He very much should and indeed is the subject of scientific enquiry, and on this you are flat out wrong.
The following valid statements can be hold:
(1) Transcendental entities are per se excluded from any scientific reasoning based upon the principal of economy of thought. No scientifc investigation will ever deal with the evaluation of transcendental religious claims. Science does not make any value judgment about the validity of such belief systems. Science is agnostic to God.
Only agnostic inasmuch as it is agnostic to everything!
Science is already dealing with transcendental religious claims - in the past, science has provided evidence against geocentrism, God making the sun rise, God making rain happen, God causing a global flood. It has investigated prayer, too.
You are lying.
(2) God represents a predominant figure in certain belief systems.
True, but utterly irrelevant to the veracity or otherwise of the God hypothesis! Keep up at the back.
