Conversion

[LukeMC]

There are arguments that are scientifically verifiable in the sense of being verifiable by empirical and rational inquiry, yes. Scientifically verifiable in the sense of being provable from the premise of naturalism that "God does not exist", certainly not, for that is an a priori exclusion of the investigation of the proposition that he exists.

You mean metaphysical naturalism? The naturalism upon which science is built is not strictly metaphysical naturalism. The first premises of scientific naturalism are that the universe is real and the activities within it can be explained in natural terms. Whether or not the universe was created by a god or a flowerpot man, the methodology seeks to find causal links between phenomena in the observable universe. These verifiable scientific facts are what all of these stupid arguments (such as Kalam's) are based on. Regardless of the philosophy of the scientists, these are the facts that determine your arguments and this is why science is vital to finding the truth about god.

Besides, if we are to get into the epistemology, which is what you engaged by speaking of verifiability, an externally unverifiable assumption is not the same as a baseless assumption, since an internal knowledge and warrant which is externally unverifiable is quite possible. An example by Plantinga beneath.

I reject this example. More evidence was available if they chose to pursue it (foot prints, forensic evidence, odours, etc).