Evidence for a god. Do you have any ?

[Angrboda]

Wrong.....again.

The scientific method can be applied to anything thats falsifiable, given we have the tools for observation to falsify. Please make a falsifiable definition of *supernatural* in general and your particular supernatural belief in particular, then we can start to apply.

Example: You (may) claim that your god created every species. If we can demonstrate speciation by other origins, your claim is falsified.
Observation: Tons of evidence supporting the theory of evolution
Conclusion: Your claim is rejected. We didnt even need to investigate the supernatural, because the criteria for falsification were related to the natural world.

You may make a new claim for a (different) god, in accordance with evolution. Then you need to give new falsifiable specifics.

Source - Science Clarified

"The term scientific method refers in general to the procedures that scientists follow in obtaining true statements about the natural world. As it happens, scientists actually use all manner of procedures to obtain the information they want. Some of those procedures are not very objective, not very formal, and not very systematic. Still, the "ground rules" by which science tends to operate are distinctive and very different from those by which "true statements" are produced in philosophy, the arts, history, ethics, and other fields of human endeavor."

___ End


You don't know what you are talking about.

It was already pointed out to you that intercessory prayer studies, which are routinely considered scientific, do not qualify according to the definition and sources that you've provided. And as already noted previously as well, if the sources and authorities you use to vet your definitions are making incoherent statements or false statements about what the scientific method can or can't do, then their being an authority doesn't make their opinion correct. That you continue, in the face of having these facts explained to you earlier choose to repeat bad arguments and invalid appeals to authority simple points to the fact that you are a dishonest dumbass.

---

That's nice, dear...but what logical fallacy can you identify, and what's wrong with the criteria established by the definition of the term, itself?

I already pointed it out.  I didn't assert any evidence.  Do you want the technical name for the fallacy?

No reason to attempt to provide something that isn't adequately defined.  In this case "evidence", it would be a waste of time trying to pick and choose what might be considered adequate.  If it's not objective, then I'm not interested.  If someone else is, then target them for it.

The truly sad thing is that there is a common and readily identifiable fallacy which you could point to for Gae which would extricate yourself from this mess. That you continue to waffle and fail to actually name a specific fallacy rather strongly suggests that you don't know what the fuck you are talking about.