I don’t like to debate the existence of God. I have no wish to prove or convince. But this thought just came to me on the tangential end of another thought, and I wanted some feedback from someone who has thought about this before.
In general, Christians say that God is not a scientifically testable hypothesis, while many atheists say otherwise. I see it as a little of both. God is supernatural, yes, but as a Christian I believed that Christianity was a fusion of both the natural and supernatural worlds. Wheaton did a lot to hammer this point out in me, teaching me that body and soul are both important. Christianity claims to be more than Gnosticism; that Jesus was both man and God; that the dead are bodily resurrected; that the body matters as well as the soul. If Christianity claims that its domain includes natural materials and natural processes, then it must be subject to at least some measures of natural analysis.
In my view, the logic behind Christians saying that God cannot be scientifically proven or disproven is that God is more powerful than science, and has the ability to transcend scientific methods of detection. In that case, if we rule out scientific arguments against God’s existence, wouldn’t we also have to rule out philosophical arguments for and against the existence of God, since God could also transcend all logic and reason?
Inconveniently for atheists, it seems that natural processes can only confirm, not falsify Christianity. If something provides evidence to support the existence of God, it’s accepted by Christians. If there is no evidence or evidence against God, it’s not because he’s not there, it’s because he’s being transcendent.