On the nature of evidence.

[genkaus]

Let's start with the basics - your god is supposed to be an intelligent immaterial entity. Start with proving that intelligence can exist without a material medium and then we'll go to the next step.

I never claimed him to be immaterial.

That makes your job even easier - if he is material, get his picture.

---

What you do next is irrelevant to the discussion.

You mean your next idea about inquiry regarding evidence of god's is irrelevant to this discussion?

Groups of people all around the world report instances of miracles all the time.

Did you miss the part about leaving tangible, verifiable evidence?

---

Defining god as "something we can't scientifically test for" is special pleading to begin with. Any insane notion could be true, but the question here is establishing that it is true and we won't lower the standard of proof where that is concerned. And having a more reliable method of verification is a very good reason discount one that isn't reliable.

I've already responded to your points in other comments. If you have nothing further it would appear we are at an impasse.

There is no impasse - you have been proven wrong and all you have to offer are shoddy rationalizations.

I have specifically asked several times how one would go about testing for the existence of God scientifically and have received no answer. If that's your standard of proof that's your prerogative. It is not shared by me or most people.

Actually, you have received many answers. Like proving the OT miracles. Or immaterial intelligence. Your problem is that you know your hypothetical god would fail any such scientific test which is why you want to posit him as unscientific to begin with.