It still comes down to the definition of "God".
"God" is a word. That means it was invented by humans. Humans had something in mind when they devised the word.
The religious will fall behind the defense of "well that doesn't disprove a god that chooses not to reveal himself" but that's bunk. The proper response is "Oh, I thought we were talking about some intelligent being that answers prayers and affects our lives. Please tell me what you mean by "God" and I'll let you know if science can disprove it.
Basically science is constantly disproving alleged characteristics of "God". If you disprove enough alleged characteristics, is it still "God"? Does the word "God" still have any significance?
That is why the person asking the question "can science refute god?" must first explain what he means by "god". Otherwise he might as well ask can science disprove Molbeyr?
Only because "god" is a word in common usage and Molbeyr is a word I made up, there's a difference. We all have some idea of what is meant by "god". We already assign characteristics to the concept once we use a common word for it.
It's my position that no single characteristic is enough to fit the word, and that any combination of characteristics that would fit the word can be disproven.
