In this comments thread, we've been visited once again by Rhology, who says:
I don't agree that God is unprovable or unproven. Not provable by naturalistic means, of course, but there's no reason to restrict ourselves to solely naturalistic means.
What, exactly, are the "non-naturalistic" means that Rho proposes? How do they work? What are their methodologies? Can one use them to test a falsifiable hypothesis and formulate a theory which has predictive power? Rho seems to imply this, since his statement suggests God's existence can thereby be (and actually has been) proven. But if you're looking for a real explanation of how to go about seeking knowledge using "non-naturalistic means," then Rho will disappoint you.
This is the appeal to other ways of knowing, a common bit of hand-waving employed not just by religionists, but practitioners of all manner of woo. Skeptico has also written about this. And I hate to say it, but it seems to be a view that not only has traction amongst the anti-science clods you'd expect, but among people in the scientific community who should know better, usually in a misguided attempt at offering a sop to the ignorant in the belief that those people would simply be too scared of the threat science poses to their precious belief of choice unless the olive branch of appeasement is offered.
Case in point: the National Academy of Sciences has just released a booklet for the lay reader (you can download the whole thing as a free PDF) spelling out the case for evolution and against ID in a very clear, accessible, and commendable way. But the book makes the concessions to religion that has caused guys like PZ Myers and Larry Moran to roll their eyes. "Science and Religion Offer Different Ways of Understanding the World," trumpets one chapter heading. But they don't. Not even remotely. Science offers ways of understanding the world, religion offers supernatural beliefs in place of understanding, which actively impede many people's ability to achieve understanding. It really is a big blemish in an otherwise scientifically sound book. Then again, if the way in which this "different way of understanding" actually works, and how its conclusions can be determined to be just as epistemologically valid as those of science, were actually explained in detail, then I'd happily sing a different tune. But no, we just get the assertion that a "different," "non-naturalistic" means of examining truth claims exists, and that it's better, and that anyone who tries to rebut this is simply "making excuses" for science's own presumed failings. That's religion for you. No evidence is ever needed, only that whose existence conveniently resides in some "non-naturalistic" realm only discernible to those who have thrown off materialism's presumptions.