There is no "God hypothesis".

Because we have both written a lot, I have decided to summarize our arguments. From what I have read, your argument is as follows: A god hypothesis can exist because god can be defined. This definition does not have to be mutually accepted. From this definition we can extrapolate the supposed properties and/or abilities of god and test these to establish or refute the existence of god. My argument is as follows: A god hypothesis cannot exist because god cannot be defined IN RELATION TO current knowledge about the universe. A scientific definition is one that relates to what is already known and can be put into that context. That way, scientists know what they are looking for and where/how to look for it. It is my understanding that you are having trouble following my argument. I will try to explain further. I am a scientist proposing a hypothesis that black holes exist. I define a black hole as the collapsed core of a super-giant star. This hypothesis is viable due to the following: 1) I have defined the hypothesized phenomena in relation to current knowledge. Scientists already know about stars and gravitation. They can therefore work from this prior understanding. 2) I have defined the hypothesized phenomena in the context of current knowledge. That is, I know where to look for the proposed phenomena: in space. 3) I have defined the hypothesized phenomena within a specific field or fields of study. Stars are astronomical phenomena. Gravitation is studied in physics. I therefore already have my fields of study in which to prove/disprove the existence of black holes: physics and astronomy. Now few hypotheses would overtly state where we should look or what fields we should study in order to prove/disprove a phenomena, however, they are always at least implied by what is being hypothesized. Now let me try to put god into a hypothesis. Firstly, I need to define god in relation to current knowledge. In nature, what would god be? I immediately face the hurdle of trying to state in scientific terms what god is supposed to be, a force, an energy, what? There are many ideas but which one should the scientist look into? God cannot be all of those things and the scientist cannot look into all of them singularly ether. Under normal circumstances, such as the analogy with black holes, the scientist has been given something specific and something that relates to what he already knows, from which he can work from. With god, there is no specificity (or way of coming to specificity) nor anywhere to start from. For arguments sake, I will use your definition of god: a supernatural being. Now I need to put "supernatural being" in the context of current knowledge, that is to say, where would I look for a "supernatural being"? A being is classified as a living organism of some sort. Is god therefore supposed to be biological? But what of "supernatural"? This implies something outside of nature. All biological organisms, even theorized ones (like the Loch Ness Monster) are at least considered to be within nature. We can therefore look for them. God however is implied to be an organism outside of nature. You are therefore hypothesizing something that is impossible to look for, making the hypothesis untenable. Finally, what field would I study to find a supernatural being? As I said, a "being" is a biological organism. So it is implied that I use biology to look for god. But then there is the matter of the being being "supernatural". There is no field in science that studies supernatural phenomena. Please note the the second and third points were made for arguments sake. Without first being able define god as it relates to what is already known, it is impossible to address the second and third points.