The Existence of a "Supreme Being," "Creator," or "God" is not Debatable

I suspect we may actually, at least to a great degree, be on the same side of this question, but in the interests of furthering the cause of investigation into the whole "God" question...:-)...I thought it might be interesting to take it on. I am very tempted to simply ask, "why not?" and leave it at that, but clearly this would be an insufficient response. But it IS the essence of the approach I'm going to have to take here. The claim is made that the "existence of God" is not open to debate due to the "nature of religion" - that religion, in requiring faith, eliminates the possibility of questioning its subject matter. And perhaps, for some who would call themselves "religious," this must be so. However, if anyone is truly and honestly interested in furthering their understanding of God, even with the assumption that they believe He/She/It exists, I fail to see how that person could not be interested in pursuing any question regarding the nature of this supposed entity. And that would have to include the most fundamental question regarding that nature, whether or not said entity exists in the first place. By what right does "religion" (in general) rule itself out-of-bounds for this sort of inquiry? It's all well and good to say that "religion requires faith," but why should that mean that others (those who do not profess "faith" in a given religion) cannot conduct an honest inquiry into it? By this I do not mean simply a desperate hunt for any and all arguments which would "prove" the religion to be incorrect - I do acknowledge, though, that those happen all too often. But why cannot one conduct a truly sincere and honest inquiry into the basic questions of religion, through whatever means (including, even, the scientific method!) are available? Part of the problem with questions like this one is that very often, the subject matter is very, very ill-defined. Simply asking "Is there a God?", without specifying just what one means by the symbol "God," is to ask a question that is so broad as to be virtually meaningless. And if that's the case, then very likely the question IS "undebateable" - but not beecause it is a matter of religion, simply that the question isn't very well put in the first place. That happens quite often, in many subjects which quite clearly ARE open to rational inquiry and debate. So there's no special exclusion here. We are not forced to deal with such sloppy questions, though (and in fact, we should not even try to deal with them; we should instead require those asking such things to be more careful with their side of the argument). We have any number of quite specific descriptions or models of "God" from which to choose, and those do make specific claims about the nature of the purported entity. To the degree that those claims ARE specific and detailed, they are clearly open to question and to testing - and why should we not pursue such things? The religious among us claim to be interested in promoting the "truth" - and if this is really so, then they should have nothing to fear from an investigation which IS conducted fairly and with the honest goal of trying to determine just what that truth is. Again, if someone is "going after them" in the manner of a vendetta against that particular religion, that's something else entirely. But such unfair investigations should not be permitted in any subject, and definitely should not be seen as any reason why fair research cannot or should not be conducted. So if I or my religion makes the claim that "God," as we believe Him/Her/It to be, is a 300-foot-tall being of fire who lives at the South Pole, I (or we) have made a specific, testable claim, and have little to object about if that claim is tested. Someone can mount an expedition to the South Pole, and, assuming no 300-foot-tall being of fire is found there, we should then either retract or modify our claim. (Many religions choose to do neither in the face of similar circumstances, but I believe that says much more about their actual commitment to the truth than about whether or not religious claims "should" be tested.) Now, clearly, not many religious claims are this clear-cut or as readily testable. But simply because something might be difficult to test is no reason that we shouldn't look for some way to test it. After all, we may learn something very interesting along the way, and isn't that what inquiry is supposed to be all about?