Proof and evidence will always equal Science

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Should a theist propose a god whom science does not rule out, I would listen.  That means, a god who didn't exist before the universe or create it.  One who doesn't know everything, will things to happen, or defy natural laws.  That god would at least have a chance to exist.

Right? At the core, my whole argument is that "god" is inherently set up as "something that cannot exist" because as soon as it does, it no longer fits the mystical requirements of the definition.

If a theist brought you a guy named Dave(who fits your criteria) and said "this is god" it'd be like, "well, they got me there. Dave exists." 

Interesting perception.

My position remains that the existence of god(s) as a supernatural being, is so far unfalsifiable.  I'm unable to accept that god(s) can be argued onto or out of existence.  I demand empirical evidence and will accept nothing less.

When a person claims "there is a god" , his claim attracts the  burden of proof. Same goes for the person who claims " there is no god", as he has made an affirming statement .

Does it not seem strange that no one before you in recorded history has dismissed god with a logical argument, and had it universally accepted?

I call myself an agnostic atheist. By that I mean I am unable to believe in god(s) due to a lack of empirical evidence.    I am agnostic about the existence of god(s). By this I mean such a being is currently unknown or unknowable.  A skeptic, I avoid claims of certitude. Seems to me a god of infinite attributes would be unknowable to finite beings, but this is just an opinion, I have no way  of demonstrating this opinion. 

I like this quote  from Dean Swift:

"I remember it was with extreme difficulty that I could bring my master to understand the meaning of the word opinion; or how a point could be disputable; because reason taught us to affirm or deny only when we are certain; and beyond our knowledge we can do neither."