Quote Originally Posted by SadisticNature View Post
As for the temperature scale:
My point is the actual temperature we identify as 100 celcius may in fact be different from the true temperature at which water boils if some divine entity were causing the true laws of nature to be violated in all instances. In this case we would discover false laws based on the violations.
It doesn't matter what the so called actual temperature should be. A being violating the laws of nature in all instances is identical in results to no being violating said laws. It's not a proof of divine intervention, though an assumption of divine intervention can be made if you wish. But why would you?

Model A provides evidence for god not existing as within Model A the statement god does not exist is true.
No, it does not provide such evidence. Assumptions are not evidence. If any evidence for the existence of gods were to be found it would falsify our assumption, thereby making our hypothesis false.
Model B provides evidence for god existing as within Model B the statement god exists is true. None of this evidence is useful however as it is all circular reasoning and as neither of these models is consistent assuming a statement doesn't result in its proof.
Again, the assumption of the existence of gods' does not constitute evidence of their existence.
In these two instances either hypothesis works. You can assume gods exist or not and the results are identical. However, there is no evidence of such existence, so the only reason for hypothesizing them is to make yourself feel better. Their existence, if it is true, has no bearing on the running of the universe.

the axioms of science are correct then one is forced to conclude god does not exist.
I'm not sure which axioms you are referring to here, but the only reason to conclude that gods do not exist is because there is no evidence of them. For the same reason we can reasonably conclude that unicorns do not exist, that there is no green cheese on the Moon, and no ancient civilizations on Mars.

This means any argument for the existence of god would have to argue the scientific method was wrong.
The scientific method is simply a tool used to verify the work of fallible human beings. Repeated experiments and observations, duplication by independent sources and peer review of data and conclusions. There's nothing to say that you cannot prove anything, just that you have to have the evidence and the data to verify it.
However these statements have not been shown and from a logical standpoint are not derivable unless there are axioms of science that imply statements about god.
I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that we cannot prove God exists unless we make God's existance an axiom? "God exists, therefore we have proven that God exists"? Which god? Your god, or Caesar's god, or Muhammed's god? All of them? None of them?