Conversion

[Jon Paul]

Saying something is supernatural and cannot be tested is a cop out.

I have never said that it cannot be tested. But if the scientific method presupposes naturalism methodologically, and then a conclusion that contains propositions that transcend the natural realm (e.g. God exists) is excluded a priori, which a priori excludes Gods existence as within it's scope of investigation and followingly can never reach that conclusion. This is the case in methodological naturalism. So it is not me who says that Gods existence is untestable, it is science that as a methodological principle rejects testing it. And that is not a ground on which to reject Gods existence; if one did that, it would be begging the question. However, that is not what the scientific method does.

If you believe in a god that has an effect on the natural world. It can be tested.

I agree. I don't believe God is directly observable since there would be no mechanism of observation, but as I have said all along, I believe that the proposition that God exists is testable and verifiable through empirical evidence, after the effect, that is, not by direct observation, like you don't necessarily sentence someone for murder because you directly observed the murder, but because you found the fingerprint on the murder weapon after the effect, which is still empirical evidence of the thing.