Apologetics open challenge

[robvalue]

Yes, that sounds pretty good to me.

You've described the principle of an unfalsifiable claim. Science does not deal with those, because by definition it cannot investigate them. Science does not attempt to disprove such things, or comment on them at all.

I can make any number of unfalsifiable claims, and all of them are useless in practical terms.

As you say you didn't actually make a claim, because you used an "if" qualifier at the start.

If god is defined to be outside the scope of science, then god is unfalsifiable. Unfalisiable concepts are useless. Anyone making that statement admits they themselves have no way of knowing anything about it, even of its very existence. It amounts to pure speculation, and no probability can be assigned. Speculation on a subject does not indicate a nonzero probability.

Trying to use this as a positive argument for the existence of god is called the argument from ignorance fallacy (in case you've not heard of it) It disregards the scenario where the claim is false, but cannot be proven false.