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

Some interesting arguments. Let's take each one and see where it leads us. First, the notion that ultimately, any such debate on God's existence, when it gets right down to that final question, becomes "no longer valid simply because of either side's ability to solve for any question." That's true, though, only if we for some reason grant one side of the debate (and frankly, it's generally the "religious" side) the option to dodge their responsibilities in a debate. Specifically, in a debate, you're supposed to support your assertions with evidence and reasoning. Permitting one side to simply throw up their hands and offer the assertion, "Well, God did it that way, and Some Things Man Is Not Meant To Understand" (or words to that effect) IS just such a suspension of the rules. It's worse than that, actually; it amounts to permitting one side to argue through vigorous assertion, to offer the equivalent of "well, I'm right and that's all there is to it!", since appealing to the "that's the way God is" clearly presupposes that there IS, after all, a God in the first place. But since that's the question at hand, it's really just dodging the issue. We don't permit such behavior in any other field of honest inquiry and debate - why are we so willing to grant the religious, and no others, a free pass in this regard? And is that not exactly what's happening when you say: "Any arguments against the presence of such a Being can be made inconsequential with a simple 'well, we just don't know what it means yet. That's what He wants, and we can't understand.'?" Do you really think that renders opposing arguments "inconsequential"? Would you accept an argument of that form from an opponent on some other topic, NOT having to do with religion? Is this not special-casing religion, and permitting the "religious" opponent to get away with some decidedly invalid debating tactics? And in your example of the "incorruptibles," we see just such tactics. The arguments you describe the "religious side" are offering are, each and every one, classics of flawed reasoning. There ARE other explanations, and to deny this is a classic "excluded middle" tactic. Other religions offer very similar if not identical "miracles" of preservation. The "science doesn't offer any reasonable explanation" in part relies on the ignorance of the person taking the scientific side - perhaps no alternative explanation is known TO THEM - but is itself an "argument from ignorance;" i.e., "I can't think of any other explanations, so the one I am proposing MUST be right." The specific argument in question may have "gone nowhere," but that by itself is not evidence that ALL such arguments must "go nowhere," or that even this argument could not have been more capably handled (no offense to you meant, of course) by someone more familiar with the issue in question. This example is, in fact, a perfect one to demonstrate what I was talking about in the first round. We have a very specific, testable proposition: that certain bodies have been miraculously preserved (through an "act of God") due to the faith of those deceased. The arguments offered by the "religious" side do NOT seem to have been all that reasonable, and all that would be required for the "scientific" side was to show a viable, non-supernatural explanation for the preservation, and/or to show that there was no preferential preservation only of the "faithful." That this was not done in this case is not evidence for the proposition that it could not or should not be done. I would also have to question your claim that science is "based on the proposal that we can and will understand everything if we work hard enough," whereas religion is based on "an acceptance of non-understanding." Or rather, I would have to expand on that distinction. Science ultimately is based on the notion that the universe is not just knowable but consistent; it is therefore valid to derive models for how the universe works by observing it, and making the assumption that a given action or stimulus will always result in the same result. But what happens if we deny that assumption? To say that there are phenomena which cannot be understood through repeated observation and testing is really to say that these phenomena are chaotic; they follow no rules, and the results of two separate but identical situations can vary wildly and capriciously. Now, if we are to assume that there is a God whose actions are purely chaotic and capricious, then we would certainly also have to assume that you can learn nothing about the nature of that God through observing his/her/its actions. But this is not the case for most models of "God" which are offered to us for consideration - these Gods are not supposed to behave simply as random-number generators, but are described as having specific, consistent attributes. They are always good, and/or all-powerful, and/or all-knowing, etc., etc.. Again, such claims most certainly can be subjected to reasoned analysis, and therefore debate - as long as both sides are willing to play by the rules for such things! Assertions, evidence, and reason CANNOT simply be "dismissed" by the religious side of the question, IF they truly wish to debate the honestly and are interested in determining the truth. If your argument comes down to "the existence of God is not debateable, because those who assert God's existence aren't willing to actually debate," then clearly I can have no disagreement with that. But if you are trying to say that there is truly something inherent in the nature of God (the God, A God...see, it DOES get difficult unless we're willing to point to a particular God) which renders his/her/its existence "not debatable" - then I would have to say that this has not yet been shown.