[monster]

Originally Posted by ChainLegacy

We cannot definitively answer the question, that does not mean it is somehow unanswerable by scientific means. We simply haven't found our answer just yet.

No, you cannot answer because you (or Denett or both of you) jumped to a conclusion. There is no basis for claiming that God is within the observations of science.

First, you'd have to be capable of reliably (in your own words) "detect" God. If you can do that, then you can scientifically observe God, test whatever hypothesis you have, and come up with conclusions.

Until then, saying the "God question" is somehow scientifically answerable only you haven't find your answer yet is no different than simply saying God exists. They're both based more on faith than the scientific method.

Originally Posted by zarqu

Science tries to make sense of the natural world.

If God is to interact with the natural world, his/her existence is by definition a matter of scientific enquiry.

Nothing supernatural exists. As soon as anything "supernatural" interacts with the natural world (I'm thinking miracles here), it enters the domain of science and can be investigated using the scientific method.

Except since we don't know everything about the natural world, we can't reliably detect whether a phenomenon is caused by God's interaction. At most, you can observe the phenomenon itself, but not God. Unless God chooses to reveal himself.

So the argument boils down to: no evidence thus far. And no evidence will come up.

What the argument boils down to is if you insist on using scientific evidence when making a claim, and you don't have any evidence or a way to test that claim, then don't make the claim.