God as a Null Hypothesis

[Confused]

The current belief is that they can't. To accept science requires accepting one of its central tenets: that a claim must be falsifiable; that is, there must be some way to test the claim and show it to be false. If it can't be proven false, then it can't be proven true.

Question for debate:
1) If we want to make God's existence a scientific question that can be decided by empirical evidence, what operational definition of God can we establish and what quantifiable criteria would we use to arrive at a testable conclusion.

2) Could we consider the "null hypothesis" in which we begin by accepting that whatever is being tested does not exist or has no effect.

[Furrowed Brow]

1) If we want to make God's existence a scientific question that can be decided by empirical evidence, what operational definition of God can we establish and what quantifiable criteria would we use to arrive at a testable conclusion.

No. Don't think that is possible.

I think we do need to tie down a strict methodology to which Creationists and Iders have to meet to be classed as a system of knowledge let alone a science. So rather than quantify God, I think we stand a greater chance of quantifying the path to knowledge.

2) Could we consider the "null hypothesis" in which we begin by accepting that whatever is being tested does not exist or has no effect.

Not sure if this is a good idea. I think to invest time and money into testing a hypothesis - you have to treat the idea as having some merit. Otherwise - why bother?

[Confused]

Unfortunately, no theist has come forward to assist in the creation of a methodology. Logic says we must reject the God hypothesis, as science does as well. But I would still be interested in hearing how the theists on this forum would postulate a methodology and formulate quantifiable criteria upon which we could apply to formulate a testable conclusion.