Anfauglir... On your question Ill apply my reasoning that I supported earlier to both the existence and lack of existence of a god...
On existence, God is real... This being true what would have to be true, We would most likely see a belief system based around his existence(unnecessary but likely), We would see some evidence of a God at the base workings of nature ie physics,
We may see a record of his interaction with our species (also not required)...
Conclusion, we saw to things that suggested a god, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell... Inconclusive
On non existence, God is not real... This being true what would have to be true? We would most likely see groups of people denying an existence(not required). We would see a complete explanation of the natural that does not require an intervention of intelligence.
Conclusion, we saw something that suggested a lack of a God, but had only one requirement, since there is not a complete understanding of the natural laws we cannot tell if intelligent intervention is required or not... Inconclusive
My assertion is that using my thought process It is not possible to possible to prove a god or lack there of but It does tell us where to look for the answer which as far as I could discern is the same place...
Or, in other words, there is NO testable question you can come up with, and therefore no evidence that can be said to support the hypothesis. As far as I understand it, your position ultimately is that at the point we have a full understanding of physics, we will be able to determine if there is, or is not, a god: only then will we know.
Well, fair enough. But so freakin' what? How does that help anyone now, today? If that is the ONLY way we can determine the existence of a god - ANY god - then any particular religion is as valid as any other. Christianity as valid as Hinduism, Odin as likely as Osiris. What religion you follow is a matter of personal preference and whim (since there is NO evidence that would support one deity over another), and therefore there is NO reason at all for any special priviledge in law or government or society for any chosen faith. It should be as legal and valid to be married by a Shaman of Tzeentch as by a Muslim Imam, as valid to offset tax against donations to a Christian church/charity as to a Satanist one.
Lack of testable evidence, and a scant "one day we MIGHT be able to answer the qustion" is a position that carries huge amounts of meaning, as I've noted above. As a seeker after truth, I'm sure you would support everything I've said above?
I also want to do the flight example...
Human flight is possible, If that is true then humans can be made as light as air. If humans can be made as light as air then there is a process by which humans can be made lighter than other fluids. A common fluid humans are made lighter then is water. Boats float on water by Bernoulli's principal.
Conclusion... To achieve human flight we should investigate the application of Bernoulli's principal
Sure, go for it. Keep a record of every test you do, every different mechanism and experiment. Look at the way that each one, time after time, has failed. And as the list of failures gets longer and longer, explain how support for the original theory should become stronger
? Because THAT is what you are saying here: come up with a theory, have every test and experiment for that theory fail, but continue to assert that the theory is correct regardless of the continued failure of every test and experiment
How long is "enough"? At what point, when your hypothesis is, time after time, shown to fail to work in real life, do you lose your dedication to it? And I'm not talking about one person's life here, I'm talking about centuries of millions of people all trying to prove that humans can be made lighter than air.
If there were really people out there, large groups, established for centuries, asserting that "humans can become lighter than air, we just haven't found out how", we would be ridiculing them by now, as they continue to hold their theory in the face of centuries of failure. We'd tease them if we met them, we'd vote against funding for continued experiments, we'd CERTAINLY be denying them charitable status or advantage in law. So why would anyone suggest religion should be treated any differently?