"God doesn't Exist"- Claim or Conclusion

[SteveII]

What evidence of supernatural causation? [1] 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? [2]

What method, if not science, do you propose to use to tackle the supernatural? [3]

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? [4]

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. [5]

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. [6]

[1] As I said a few pages back: We have the events of the NT as evidence, we have personal experiences of billions of people as evidence, we have all the formal natural theology arguments which articulate an inference to the existence of God based on natural evidence. While you might not like the evidence or think it is compelling, that is your subjective opinion and does not equate to "no evidence".

[2] Your hyper skepticism of what we know about the universe seems manufactured to deny the supernatural. You invoke "science" at every turn as the measure of all things and then make a philosophical statement that we can't trust what we have learned. 

[3] None. How could science, the study of natural things, be proposed as the measure of supernatural things?

[4] Vast stretches of human knowledge is unfalsifiable. Logic, mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, language, art, etc. Is all this "meaningless"?

[5] Yes, the supernatural is beyond our detection--up until the point it interacts with the natural world (see #1). We cannot investigate it since it is causally one direction. 

[6] Except over 6.5 billion people alive right this minute think that the supernatural exist and so the question is therefore important. Scientism is very limiting view of reality. 

---

There seems to have always been a near universal belief in some sort of supernatural--it seems we are hardwired for it. We look for purpose and meaning. This common trait opens most up to consider various religions and their answers to such questions. This trait, generally speaking, does not open people up to consider "leprichauns, fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus" and other gods (like the greek or roman roster) so it is a category mistake to lump them into a discussion on religion.

It is not a category mistake for 'other gods'.  You may want to minimize the similarity between Christian gods and Hindu gods and Roman gods and Chinese gods to neuter the comparison, the fact is they are or were worshipped in much the same fashion as your Christian God.  As long as that remains true, my point about the disparity between your treatment of atheists' skepticism and the dismissal of these other gods will remain firm.  And whether unicorns and gods belong in the same category logically speaking, when it comes to epistemic procedures they are treated the same, so for those purposes they belong to the same category.  Category errors have to do with relevant differences, not just any old difference.  If the latter were true, then everything would be in a category of one. 

While you may find "reasonably plausible explanation for what 'evidence' the theist is capable of presenting" that is subjective and is a far cry from the positive claim "there is no God".

That is only true if you are treating negative claims the same as positive existential claims.  As noted, I do not and I have good reason for the disparity, as negative claims are generally impossible to prove beyond the reach of any ad hoc adjustments to the positive claim.  It's a loaded game, and I feel we can have certainty in the negative claim at a far cheaper price.  As noted, there is a hypocrisy in the way that many theists treat negative claims about their gods and negative claims about other gods.  Whenever a Christian is asked why they don't believe in Hindu gods, the reply is usually not an iron clad argument against the existence of those gods.  Why should I feel obliged to provide what the theist is himself unwilling to provide to justify his skepticism?  If my stance on relative burdens of proof is irrational, then so is the theists' stance on other gods.  That can't be brushed aside by calling it a category mistake.

Furthermore, burden of proof is about what it takes, subjectively, to convince another that a proposition is true.  I hold no great hopes that my discourses on the logic of disbelief will persuade many theists to abandon their belief.  So the burden of proof is relevant only to what I find subjectively convincing.  As noted, I've met that burden of proof for the claim that there is no god or gods.  If my mind is to be changed it will have to come from substantial evidence for the proposition that there is a god.  And so far, with people holding out things like the supposed historicity of the bible as evidence, I'm not overly concerned.

You make excellent points. Thank you for the thoughtful responses.