Conversion

[LukeMC]

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.

With nature being all that is contained within the universe and all that can be tested for an all that can be known about the universe, and you placing your god outside of this, you're up-front admitting that this God cannot be tested for by any reasonable means known to man. Oh wait, that would be forgetting your means, which I'm about to get onto.

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.

Then I pray you do tell, in the most simplistic and easily digestable way possible, what is this testable and verifiable evidence one last time so that we can be quite sure of your reasoning in its entirety? I beg of you to convince me. Just lay it out and if it has any merit I'll be the first to entertain the ideas. But please, back up any assumptions you make.