14 Apr '09 08:17>
Originally posted by FabianFnasThat is only true if you have a rather weird definition of "God". But you are using a strawman argument. You are telling Christians how to define their God then telling them he is unscientific.
"If god exists then..." is the same kind of asssumption as "If you travel with a speed faster than that of light, then...".
If you assume something unscientific, then every statement following cannot be right or wrong, just undefined.
The existance of god isn't a part of science, because it assumes that natural laws can be broken, therefore not scientific.
Natural laws cannot be broken by definition. I suspect it is you that does not understand science. Science does not define laws then dictate to the universe to obey them. Science merely observes the universe and tries to understand what laws govern it. If what we believe to be laws are broken then it is our understanding that is wrong and not the universe breaking 'natural' laws.
If God exists then any effects he has on the universe are a part of the natural laws of the universe and thus are neither breaking any natural laws nor unscientific. Also they should be detectable unless God specifically goes to great lengths to make sure they are not in which case as a scientist we should simply assume they do not exist.
If a religious belief includes effects in the universe such as a world wide flood then there is nothing wrong with scientifically looking for evidence. If the evidence strongly points towards there never having been a world wide flood then one should conclude that either the belief is false or God covered up all the evidence deliberately. But to simply sit back and say science and religion don't mix is equivalent to saying all beliefs are necessarily false or covered up by God. I don't think you have good reason for such a claim.