Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Welsh cake]

First, those good theists are not the only ones. For example, atheist and skeptic Michael Shermer writes (1999), "What criteria for falsifiability could we establish to determine God's existence or nonexistence? Believers' claim that there is overwhelming evidence, or atheists' claim that there is no evidence, is not a test.

You do realise he was asking a rhetorical question? Michael wasn't interested in actually going about testing hypothesises for god when he was actually elaborating on the fact that god as a fictional character is not epistemologically testable. He concluded his thinking that there is no experiment or convincing argument to reach a conclusion that a man-made god exists empirically.

If we want to make this a scientific question that can be decided by empirical evidence, the burden of proof is on both believers and nonbelievers to establish operational definitions and quantifiable criteria by which we can arrive at a testable conclusion. What is the operational definition of God and what quantifiable criteria should we use to accept or reject the null hypothesis of God's nonexistence?"

The late-Karl Popper had his fair share of critics from rationalists and philosophers for his "views" on scientific methodology and the like. Here he fails to understand how the burden of proof works. It falls heaviest on those making ontologically positive extraordinary claims i.e. god exists. I'm not making an ontologically negative claim here "god does not exist" because you haven't even told me what your definition of the concept is.

And on that note, Arcanus, could you at least have the decency to respond to me directly and not quote someone else, reference or no reference. Do you want to have a discussion or not?

Second, those theists are not hypocrites if they point out that God is beyond the scope of "incoherent" science. They want to have their cake and eat it too only if they bash science on one hand yet esteem it on the other.

That's equivalent to stating those theists aren't hypocrites if they reject and discredit the findings of science yet praise the subsequent advancements of technology brought about if it helps them spread their gospel's message. They are still being hypocritical regardless.

I don't, actually. I have no idea where that came from.

From you. Asserting that reason and evidence cannot disprove God as creator when failing to understand what is required for existence claims was just an argument from incredulity.