Falsifiability Guidelines

Let us attempt to test the existence of a god as a scientific hypothesis (independently of historical falsifiability).

1) Examine the attributes of the desired god.

2) Look for any possible inconsistency paradoxes in their natures.

3) For such reductio proofs that require physical premises, prove logically that there can be no other way to reconcile consistency without disagreeing with the premise.

4) If the god in question is to remain consistent certain physical implications by the premise must be true. A common example would be the nature of time as relating to an immutable being.

5) If it has been rigorously empirically proved that time, space, or another such physical consequence does not agree with the conclusion from the nature of that god, it is very unlikely that such a god exists. If such a physical testable hypothesis based on the nature of a god it is very likely that that god exists (assuming no logical inconsistencies in such a god's nature).

Note: 3 is a very hard step and the most crucial step, all else is easy except possible disagreement over rigorous in 5 (a possible theistic argument here cannot be ad hoc, however).

Could you elaborate on #4?

Of course. This is assuming that the god in question will have an attribute related to time (for example, immutability). So how do we know time to work? Or let's say that the god in question is supposedly above logic. Do we know that everything else is contingent? These would be examples. One could also use miracles, although miracles are interpreted differently for different gods of course.

I watched a debate vid once where WLC made such an example concerning interpretations of relativity and time and tying in God's nature to make a hypothesis. Of course one could argue that the yoking was forced, but its still a good example of what I mean.

Well, it seems you have considered a framework for logically considering God. What are you thoughts one these questions?

I have concluded that when one attempts to show the nature of a god is contradictory, the argument from ignorance affects the nonbeliever. However, it would be unreasonable to have many different claims about how physics works if one is considering every god. So the certain theist must first establish the existence of his particular god to be a credible one before the argument from ignorance is on the nonbeliever. This all means to me that if some theist can prove that the existence of his god is likely, then he gets "bonus points" to also establish that his god is logically consistent in at least a few cases. This is the application.