"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[robvalue]

What is the natural universe? Since universe generally means everything that exists, there's a language problem already. Our observable framework? I assume you must be referring to our attempts to model the framework; here is the equivocation. Our models are not the framework. We don't have access to the rules of the framework, so we cannot know if something isn't constrained by it. We can just have the as-yet unexplained.

I explain in the video why it can be ignored. If it makes no discernible difference to anything, then things are the same whether the thing is real or not. It only exists by assumption, because there can be no evidence for or against it.

If God is "doing something", then no one can differentiate it from him not doing anything. I'm doing pretty well so far ignoring all unfalsifiable phenomenon.

No, the word 'universe' has never meant everything that exists. When I said 'framework', I was distinguishing between a natural set of laws not binding the supernatural as a further way to define the word 'supernatural'. 

The supernatural may be meaningless to us until there are supernatural causes in the natural world. I would argue there is evidence of supernatural causation--certainly enough evidence to have a discussion about it where we understand each other and therefore containing 'meaning'. 

You seem to equate 'Unfalsifiable' with 'not meaningful'. Is that the case?

What evidence of supernatural causation? Since we don't know what the "natural laws" are, we can't possibly know what is breaking them. You just seem to be arbitrarily drawing a line between different things and calling some supernatural. We already expect "laws" to apply differently to different things. Where are you getting your information in what "natural laws" are? You're just using the results of scientific models, aren't you? And assuming that anything that doesn't yet fit is breaking the thing they are trying to model. What happens if we find an explanation for it tomorrow? Suddenly, it's natural again? Should we take your word that it could never be explained?

What method, if not science, do you propose to use to tackle the supernatural?

Unfalsifiable is, in practice, not meaningful, yes. It's a discussion of things that make no difference, or cannot be known. Until such time as it can be demonstrated that they do make a difference, why should I care?

I don't deny the existence of other things going on that are beyond our detection. I simply accept they are beyond our detection, and as such I can't say anything meaningful about them.

The fact that there's even any debate over whether "the supernatural" is a real thing shows how utterly unimportant the concept is at the moment. And if you compare the so-called results of different people, you'll see no convergence and no proper methodology. This is what happens when you try and go "beyond science". I don't think there's a great understanding of what science is among some people. If you could demonstrate a method which dealt with the supernatural in a rigorous way, that too would be science.