The fourth argument against God, by Ron the realist is listed as follows, "Religions never make testable claims about god."* He further states, "Every scientific claim is made specifically to be disproved, so that the right answer can be deduced logically." Ron makes two separate claims that I would like to address.
Claim number one is a popular claim concerning religion. Many today say that Christianity or any religious claims are invalid a priori because it does not fit within the realm of testable science. For the record not all scientific claims are testable. For example, Darwinian evolution is itself non-testable. I am not inferring that evolution does not not take place, for we have evidence of evolutionary changes through genetic manipulation. There is also evidence of evolution within the fossil record (look at horses as an example). What I'm discounting as a testable claim deals with the big picture of Darwin's view, that all life has started as a single celled organism. How is this big picture of Darwin's view of biological evolution ever going to be tested? The biggest problem with Darwin's view is how did life suddenly appear from non-life. This view of spontaneous generation has been tested already and found wanting.
The second point is that science makes claims that can be proven or not proven and that logic can be used to determine truth. Well, it seems to me Ron wants to have his cake and eat it too. How do you test logic empirically? One of the big assumptions of some naturalistic thinkers is that if the scientific method cannot be used then the claim itself cannot be tested and should not count on how we obtain knowledge. What about the scientific method? The scientific method cannot even stand up to its own scrutiny. The scientific method itself is not testable.
What needs to take place is an examination of all the evidence and to argue for the position that best fits the evidence and matches up with what we know to be true. You are aiming at truth here, not what can only be explained from a naturalistic standpoint. Intelligent design is not considered today, because the claim is made that it cannot be tested. The naturalist rejects any supernaturalism from the get go and this hinders their ability to find the best explanation. Any investigation should revolve around the best evidence and not be blocked by any assumptions, such as only naturalistic explanations are acceptable.
Today, as we discover more and more about the universe, the picture is becoming more clear that the universe springing into existence by chance is just not a viable option. If Ron or others are not willing to accept the argument that best explains reality, I say they are fighting a battle with both arms tied behind their back. It is like arguing from a position that you have already accepted as true and at the same time you are never willing to follow the evidence where it leads. This is exactly what is wrong from a naturalist perspective.
* Houston Chronicle, Belief section, June 26, 2009