What is your favorite argument for the existence of God?

Yes after observing that it is an effective method.

That us why I have confidence in it and not in faith based beliefs which cannot be demonstrated.

When you baldly state something without some demonstration that is  by definition a bald assertion. You cannot demonstrate your perceptions to anyone but yourself and peoples perception and senses are testable observably unreliable. 

It seems far more logical to me, that something that cannot be proven to exist is unlikely to exist.

Proving that something doesn't exist is unnecessary, if said something cannot be proven to exist in the first place.

Let's take the flying spaghetti monster for example.....Do you find it necessary to disprove it's existence?

I think that this just goes prove, that logic is not reliably logical. 

This is a statement of GNOSIS (which is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION).

Historically, something like radio-waves (might be said to have) "existed" "before" they were demonstrated (colloquially).

HOWevER, NOBODY could CLAIM they "existed" before they were demonstrated.

Certainly anybody could HYPOTHESIZE that radio-waves existed before they were demonstrated.

But that HYPOTHESIS, could not be considered REAL-TRUE-FACT until AFTER empirical demonstration.

The claim that "some things" may "exist" "undiscovered" DOES NOT CONTRADICT the fact that ANY claim of "existence" must be either empirically verifiable (demonstrable) or logically necessary.

There doesn't need to be a test in order for something to exist necessarily but it must be a test before we can claim it e ists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance.

It must be distinguishable from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.

MONISM.

Perhaps I should have said, that logic is not consistent.

How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?

And you have yet to substantiate the necessity of tests as it pertains to existence. Why must existence be tested for?

"flying fettuccine monster,"

Yes, it is necessarily one of Gnosis, but its being "functionally indistinguishable from opinion" is opinion.

Yes, but its qualification under empirical demonstration did not affect its existence, only our "considerations."

"Effective" in what?

Why must existence be tested for?

How do you justify haorsplitting between these terms?

One is synonymous with placing one's "faith." The other is accepting its truth.

"Science is necessary for Science." And I don't deny that.

The claim that "some things" may "exist" "undiscovered" DOES NOT CONTRADICT the fact that ANY claim of "existence" must be either empirically verifiable (demonstrable) or logically necessary.

Nice try. But that wasn't secularmerlin's argument.

...but it must be a test before we can claim it exists otherwise we are making an assumption, and argument from ignorance.

First, claims don't require proof.

In order for the claim to be qualified as "true" it necessitates logical substantiation.

Second, my question was: why does existence need to be tested for?

(And consider that you both pretty much admitted that existence precedes your tests.)

Not, "why does empirical verification require tests?"

In order to distinguish EXISTENCE from GNOSIS/QUALIA/PERSONAL-PRIVATE-EXPERIENTIAL/OPINION.

Amazing.

If you are unable to distinguish your statement/claim from opinion, then your statement/claim is FUNCTIONALLY indistinguishable from opinion.

My claim (GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from opinion) IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY (TAUTOLOGY).

It affects our ability to make (reasonable/logical) TRUTH-claims about existence.

Without perfectly clear-cut lines of separation between (claims of) REAL-TRUE-FACT and (claims of) GNOSIS-OPINION, "science" itself devolves into DOGMA (COERCION) which is functionally indistinguishable from religion.

but empirical verification =/= real true fact necessarily. Real true fact is an expression of logical consistency.

My claim (GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from opinion) IS LOGICALLY NECESSARY (TAUTOLOGY).

Please reference and/or demonstrate the tautology which indicates that gnosis is functionally indistinguishable from opinion.

Separating fact from fiction

most particularly in a way that improves human quality of life

which I have vested interest in as a human.

If the scientific method could be shown ineffective in this regard or a more reliable method were to present itself I would have no choice but to adjust my beliefs accordingly.

This does not seem likely to me based on reasonable expectations based on past experience.

It only needs tested for if you want anyone to take you seriously. Otherwise your claim can and should be dismissed out of hand. If you don't care about your arguments being taken seriously by all means disregard.

Since it is this second I meant I will take this as a yes. At least you are consistent in accepting unsubstantiated claims.

Do you equally accept unsubstantiated claims that have not been made like a god that has not been proposed but could be? Or those that are made ironically but also cannot be disproved like the flying spaghetti monster?

Ok, in order to engineer useful systems, all materials, forces, and properties (to be utilized) must be quantified.

Any undefined variables will degrade the reliability of your system.

The Scientific Method is a framework for reducing uncertainty (+3 sigma).

The Scientific Method is not a DOGMA, but is validated by demonstrable efficacy (bridges, computers, medicine).

If a superior framework renders The Scientific Method obsolete, I will be the first to adopt the superior alternative.

Claims of GNOSIS/OPINION do not require proof (because they are unfalsifiable).

Claims of REAL-TRUE-FACT absolutely DO demand empirical verification and or logical necessity.

Yes.  (IFF) you pretend your claim is "true" (THEN) you must demonstrate by empirical verification and or logical necessity

In order to distinguish REAL-TRUE-FACT from GNOSIS/OPINION.

In order to QUANTIFY properties that can be engineered into useful systems.

What "point" are you trying to highlight?  Sure, GLOMPRANO-WAVES "might" "exist" "undiscovered".  How is this claim even remotely useful?

Existence must be tested for in order to verify efficacy of a claim.

(P1) GNOSIS = UNFALSIFIABLE

(P2) OPINION = UNFALSIFIABLE

(C1) GNOSIS is functionally indistinguishable from OPINION

Is anyone in here even trying anymore to argue that a god really exists? I've been following this a while and it seems we're REALLY far down the rabbit hole of reason.  I think the original spirit of the topic was likely more along the lines of what's your best reason to be convinced a god is real, but we're talking about all sorts of other tengents, which, fifteen pages in, I guess is to be expected. Carry on I guess. I just don't think it's winning any converts. 

1. Athias claims his shoes are red. (This requires no proof because it's a claim. Claims by definition bear no proof.)

2. Athias's shoes being red can be proven (this requires proof because it's an affirmation of evidentiary information.)

In other words, claims aren't real-true-fact. Once they require proof, they are no longer claims. Real-true-fact require proof because they're proven.

Because continuing debate shows us that one persons logic is another persons illogic.

Because when all arguments are reduced, what's left is an indication of value. I press on to test the consistency of my points, not to necessarily win any converts. I suspect the same is true for 3RU7AL. As for secularmerlin and zedvictor, they're just incorrigible heretics...

A claim isn't a claim if it's true. So why must one demonstrate its "truth"?