I don't believe in God, I believe in Gravity

If you want to further list the 'by definition' attributes that this 'beyond definition' entity has then be my guest.As for your door - I'm Ignostic about it.

Ultimately it comes down to the method of knowledge acquisition being used to make the testable claim.A testable claim derived from divine revelation, communicating with GOD or whatever would be a supernatural hypothesis.The problem is not that such claims cannot be tested. The problem for supernaturalists is that their claims have persistently been found to be false.

So we are back to "It cannot exist because I wouldn't recgnise it even if it did exist".That's just stupid. It's been asserted. No-one has shown why supernatural hypotheses cannot be scientifically tested. Then the only way to get things out of your "unknown" folder is not to test "the natural" or test "the supernatural" as you keep stupidly demanding. Instead the best we can do is test hypotheses. test the logical consequences of hypotheses in the form of predictions.And, as I keep telling you, there is no reason supernatural hypotheses are any different to natural ones in that respect.

Not convinced? OK - Let's do some more testing.The hypothesis is that those who are more devout will receive healing powers from GOD. The prediction is that those who devote themselves to GOD will exhibit these healing powers.We get a group of those who are about to set out dedicating their life to prayer, biblical study and generally praising GOD.We get another group who think it's all a load of bunk and who refuse to have anything to do with GOD whatever these mysterious healing powers may suggest.We get a control group who have no idea what they are being tested for.Over time the first group are objectively verified as exhibiting incredible healing powers whilst the other two groups show no such signs.This would be objective empirical evidence in favour of the supernatural claim in question. It's the theists in this thread defining things to fit their beliefs.I'm the one saying that given appropriate evidence I would actually reconsider and even change my atheistic ways for heavens sake!!

You have just removed the role of prediction from the scientific method!!How do you test an observation?You test a hypothesis by means of observation. Until you show me how to test "the natural" rather than a naturalistic hypothesis you are just blustering on for reasons of ideology.

I'm not "scientifically explaining the supernatural". I'm telling you how a supernatural hypotheses could be objectively evidenced. Do you understand the difference between "explanation" and "evidence"?Really CS - For thread after thread, year after year you tell me that "subjective evidence" - Voices inside people's heads and suchlike - Cannot be ignored and that it is suggestive of supernatural beings actually existing. You have debated every single regular atheist participant here at EvC on the basis that these subjective experiences are genuinely indicative of the supernatural actually existing.But I give you an example of how a supernatural hypothesis could be objectively evidenced by prediction and verification and you tell me that you would never accept that evidence!!!Do you think voices inside people's heads are a better form of evidence than verified predictions of the sort I have described?WTF

I have described how I would use prediction to verify a supernatural hypothesis.See my post to CS.What exactly is your problem with that use of prediction?

This is:As a result of prayer it has been revealed that those closest to GOD will be imbued with incredible healing powers.The hypothesis is that those who are more devout will receive healing powers from GOD.The prediction is that those who devote themselves to GOD will exhibit these healing powers.Lo and behold priests all around the world are suddenly and verifiably able to heal cancer, cause the re-growth of missing limbs and so on and so forth. The Pope is verifiably able to resurrect the dead.But - unconvinced - we do some further testing of this hypothesis:
We get a group of those who are about to set out dedicating their life to prayer, biblical study and generally praising GOD.We get another group who think it's all a load of bunk and who refuse to have anything to do with GOD whatever these mysterious healing powers may suggest.We get a control group who have no idea what they are being tested for.
Over time the first group are objectively verified as exhibiting incredible healing powers whilst the other two groups show no such signs.The above would be objective empirical evidence in favour of the supernatural claim in question obtained by the application of the hypothetico-deductive method.

There was a test of the hypothesis in question.Do you see how verifying the predictions of gravity as space-time curvature verifies the hypothesis that gravitational effects are caused by spacetime geometry?Can you explain why tests by prediction don't apply to supernatural hypotheses?

Do you agree that the hypothesis in question has been evidenced by verified prediction in the scenario as described?

Right - I've described, through example, how a supernatural hypothesis could conceivably be objectively evidenced using the hypothetico-deductive method.You don't seem to disagree with that in principle so I'm baffled as to what we are arguing about....?I certainly haven't said "science has explained the supernatural". Not in the healing scenario. Not anywhere. So I really don't know where you plucked that accusation from.

Tell me how it is flawed.

Presumably you mean your standard response - "How do you know it is GOD" in response to the hypothesis in question.But this is like asking Einstein "How do you know it is spacetime curvature" when he hypothesised that spacetime curvature was the cause of gravitational effects.The answer - Obviously - Is that you can only claim to know your hypothesis is correct when it has been tested.I have described to you how a supernatural hypothesis can be tested using the hypothetico-deductive method. I have described how a suprentural hypothesis couls conceivably be evidenced by virtue of verified predictions.

I think that is an interesting point.I think it depends on whether one sees science as a naturalistic philosophy (methodological naturalism) or a method (the hypothetico-deductive method).I guess my point is that it is in principle possible to acquire objective empirical evidence of the supernatural using the hypothetico-deductive method. That's what I have described doing. That's why I disagree with those who confidently assert that supernatural explanations can never ever possibly be objectively evidenced. They can. They just aren't.When I say that if there were objective empirical evidence of the supernatural then I would seriously question, and even potentially change, my atheistic stance - I mean it. It isn't just some bullshit debating stance because in practise there is no evidence I would ever accept (a la jar).

The hypothesis in question has been tested.Because it is hypotheses that we test. Not "the natural" or the "supernatural".You relentlessly declaring that we must test "the supernatural" is no different to Einsten being asked to test "the natural" when hypothesising that gravity is the result of spacetime curvature.Your ignorance of the hypothetico-deductive method continues.