What tests would enable science to falsify the hypothesis of a supernatural deity?

The ability to falsify a given hypothesis being one of the most important aspects of the scientific method, by what means could science falsify the idea of a supernatural deity? Especially one defined as, "beyond the realm of space and time, non-material, and non-contingent", that seems so popular these days. If you think science should address the existence of gods, then surely you must know of a way to disprove the existence of gods, otherwise there is no point in applying the methods of science to this area of inquiry.



Thanks.What tests would enable science to falsify the hypothesis of a supernatural deity?
Supernatural deities are unfalsifiable by definition. And btw, that is not a strength for a theory but a weakness.
Wrong on pretty well every count. The scientific method takes available evidence and draws a conclusion from that evidence. It does not start off with a result then try to find evidence to support that result.

To test a null hypothesis you first of all establish a prima facie case for proposing your hypothesis and then you devise a method of testing that hypothesis taking into account existing knowledge and new information from your experiment/test.

Science has not been able to establish the prima facie case yet so testing any hypothesis is way off.What tests would enable science to falsify the hypothesis of a supernatural deity?
Exactly the same tests that would enable science to prove the hypothesis of a supernatural deity: none.



Proving God's presence with science is like trying to grab a wave off the top of the ocean and hold it in your hand. It assumes things about God, reality, and our ability to perceive all realities around us, that are naive at best and hubristic at worst.What tests would enable science to falsify the hypothesis of a supernatural deity?
If you have no access to the room next door, how are you certain there is no elephant present in it?



It could be a very large room. It could be a very quiet elephant.



I don't use science to support the existence of God. Either one believes or one does not.



Where's your old "Serenity" avatar?



I just watched that movie again about a week ago. It's still a hoot.
None of his supposed "evidence" has any backbone.And there is a lot of evidence that a deity did not create the universe/earth/us.They are just a product of natural laws.One you understand evolution and and astrophysics,you don't even need god.This is all the proof you need.
Following the scientific method, first one has to have a reason to make an hypothesis. There is no reason to hypothesize a God.
It would seem to me that they have cunningly defined their God as "not interacting in any observable way with the real universe". Which is functionally equivalent to not existing.
First there would have to be something to test.

Can I test for Leprechauns? Or Pixies?

Of course not, since they don't exist, just like gods, angels, demons, ghosts and intelligent republicans...
SCIENCE HAS NO NEED TO FALSIFY THE HYPOTHESIS OF A SUPER NATURAL DEITY. BECAUSE THE HYP[OTHESIS IS NOT BASED IN LOGIC OR REASON.
I don't really see how one could hypothesise a supernatural 'anything'--much less go about falsifying it.
An IQ test.