True. If we just keep taking away any assumed property of something that would contradict the possibility of its existence, we can easily make falsifying anything’s existence impossible. The dragon in the garage, the orbiting teapot, the invisible pink unicorn, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Intelligent Design’s intelligent agent, Santa claus, etc. The list goes on.

Some concepts of God also go onto this list. The problem with defining God is that there are so many contradicting assumptions made about it. All anyone can really do is pick a set and point out how that set cannot logically work. Of course, the reply would be either a switching to another set with near-identical assumptions (but without that particular contradiction), or simply just “God is beyond logic.”

You asked about whether there were any experiments done to test if supreme beings share some of the same properites as material things. What supreme beings? Has one even been identified? Using your argument, I can just as easily claim the existence of the Easter Bunny as long as I also claim various inconvenient assumptions about it as being invalid since there have been no scientific tests done to establish whether holiday-mascot beings actually adhere to those assumptions.

At least when talking about properties of material items/beings that we actually know exist/existed, we have physical ways of testing assumptions about them as well as the means of using logic to derive certain conclusions. Speculations about other material items/beings are thus based on at least some supporting evidence of possibilty. The properties of supreme beings? Pure speculation from people’s imaginations without even a single testable example to base any kind of working assumption on (like seriously arguing about the impact a Purple People Eater would have on the environment).

God and free will: Without delving into what “free will” actually means, I can personally reconcile an all-knowing God with humans (and other creatures) having free will. This God, though, would have no interest whatsoever of the goings-on of the physical realm or even of the spiritual demise of humans. This God would either not intervene with anything that would affect the universe we live in, or, if God does intervene, it would be for reasons that have nothing to do with human welfare.

If I were to believe in a God, this would be that God. It’s always irked me how God is described as being supposedly so powerful and awesome, yet somehow is supposed to care about the feelings of puny little humans.

I understand what you’re saying; however, I still feel like science can still overstep its bounds. Science never says, “This is how this phenomena works and why.” Rather, science always says, “based on available evidence, and multiple inferences and assumptions, this seems to be the best model at the time for how and why this phenomena works.” And usually these inferences and assumptions are ones that have served us well in the past; for example, the assumption of cause and effect. These are supported by many experiments, and science couldn’t be done if we didn’t assume a lot of this stuff.

But when we apply these same assumptions to God, we are in uncharted waters. For example, people who argue that it is logically impossible for God to be all-knowing and for humans to have free will are making the assumption that God is bound by time in the same way that we appear to be. When people argue that it is impossible for God to have always existed, because He must also have have been created, they are making the assumption that cause and effect works the same way for God as it appears to do for us.

Yet, where are the scientific experiments that support these conclusions? When have we ever done a scientific test that shows that a supreme being would be subject to the same assumptions which we make all the time while studying material things? Obviously, such tests are impossible. And yet some scientists have made the jump — the leap of faith, if you will — to say that these assumptions we have about material things apply to God, and use these assumptions to disprove God. All they have disproved is the idea that God is bound by these assumptions.

Faith in science, on the other hand, does not work that way. Deeply held beliefs of how the world works can (and do) get toppled and replaced (if somewhat reluctantly) based on doubts arising from contrary evidence. Sure, a falling apple that suddenly changes directions from going down to up seemingly without natural cause would not have scientists rejecting all of current science’s understanding of physics right then and there, but it would cast serious doubt on it and many attempts to investigate possible causes or new ways of thinking of how physics works.

You won’t hear things like, “The Devil is just trying to trick us! Ignore it! Let us keep our faith in Newton strong, people.” The most would be strong doubts as to the trustworthiness of the observation of a gravity-defying apple. But if the observation can be repeated, there would be no excuse made to ignore it.

As for if “the laws of science still hold for God”, I have to say that I put this on the same intellectual level as explaining any phenomenon away as being caused by “a glitch in the Matrix” or “an invisible angel/demon/spirit” or “magical powers” or “ESP/telekinesis” or “space aliens with super-advanced technology”. Yes, those explanations are simple and short, but a giga-ton of unsupported assumptions have to be made for the basis of each one.

An agnostic is someone who says that it is in principle impossible to prove whether or not God exists. One can be an atheist agnostic or a theistic agnostic.

How can you even try to compare those statements…
An atheist (most of them though) won’t categorically deny god exists. After all, that is not possible. The concept of god is meaningless to science because a) is not backed by experimental observations b) is a nonsensical combination of people’s expectations and prejudices (or else define God). You can’t formulate a precise theory with god, for you need to know what god means to do so. How can you even define god if your purpose is to show evidence god exists?

Nobody claims “dark matter” to be real. Nobody. You can even do your homework and check numerous speeches from physicists who very humbly only SUGGEST it might exist. It’s an hypothetical situation, not yet demonstrated, though backed by evidence (if we are to trust the known laws of physics).
Being open minded is a virtue science praises. It’s not because “it’s possible” that should make you believe in something.

Maybe these things are true, but maybe God is also true is all I’m saying. Keep an open mind.