Roman Catholics admit that there are "separated brethren" among the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants, who for their part admit that there are brothers among the Roman Catholics. That's following the same Jesus.

Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons frankly admit they follow a different Jesus and regard themselves as separate from the mainstream denominations, who for their part regard them as cultists. JWs believe in a created Jesus, while Mormons believe in a deified Jesus separate from the Father. Christianity teaches instead that the man Jesus is also God and one with the Father. But to discuss these propositions is fruitless while one does not have a good working definition of god or man, or of epistemology of historic investigation.

I didn't refuse to verify anything, I began by verifying core principles of seeking truth, and, since you haven't built on those core principles by admitting that the pursuit of truth has a goal of leading somewhere, there hasn't been reason to build with you. I only answer your questions because it's a habit of mine. You may have me confused with someone who is anxious to tell you a view of truth for self-validation purposes. If you are interested in the core elements for the purpose of finding agreement rather than for the purpose of criticizing details, we could proceed; but first it's probably better to agree that we are indeed both pursuing an absolute truth outside ourselves by the process you describe of experimentation and testing.

Yes, unfalsifiable claims can be dismissed. (For instance, the many universes principle can be dismissed because it postulates that many universes exist similar to our own but that cannot be detected in any verifiable way; that's unfalsifiable because there is no measurable difference between the presence and the absence of many undetectable universes.) That fact is why I linked you to falsifiable claims, i.e. those that can be validated or invalidated by scientific or historical principles.

Yes, my desire is insufficient to prove that I do know, or get to know, even a small set of facts of the nature of the universe. That is why I pursue truth, so as to keep apprehending more of it. The scientific method assumes that the pursuit of truth does generally lead to apprehending more of it, and that's all I ask from atheists who use it.

Now, you think I'm putting forward "a sentient magic supernatural being who created the universe for fun". But I said nothing about those details here, nor do my links indicate the details you state. Analytically, (1) I explained that supernatural, same as magic, refers merely to the inexplicable. When man doesn't know how something happens scientifically, it's still supernatural; when man finds out how, it's not anymore. Man doesn't know how lightspeed variance or symmetry breaking works in the scientific origin models, so they remain in the realm of supernatural, much as science doesn't own that word (it's not me shirking the word). Science is fine with saying unexplained, though, for the aspects of the various origin theories that defy the known laws of physics. The whole quest, after all, is for new laws that transcend the current laws and explain these yet-unexplained phenomena; that was Hawking's method. (2) We can get to discussing sentience once we know what it is in ourselves and how to recognize it outside ourselves; that comes later in the logical discussion than absolute truth does. (3) "Fun" is a rather odd assumption from what I said and not in my links at all; but generically it refers to whether the universe is purposeful or not, which like sentience requires first the recognition of what purpose is and how to recognize it.

Therefore what I'm putting forward to start with is merely what all science admits: nobody knows all the laws of the universe, or the theory of everything, and every explanation and model contains portions that are unexplained. The Standard Model of physics has not resolved quantum gravity; the Big Bang theory has not resolved the first Planck instant; these admittedly unsolved, open problems defy all known laws and so it's entirely proper to call them "supernatural", meaning unexplained by known law. (Science of course presumes they can be explained by unknown law, but so do I. Definitionally, though, we speak either in the frame where some things are unexplained, or in the frame where some explanations are unknown; we don't get to waffle.) The unexplained in all these theories "supersedes" (transcends) known law, and honest atheists admit that.

If you're willing to suspend what you think I'm putting forward, and to stick to what is a reasonable inference from observation as you claim, we can investigate the starter proposition: namely, that all scientific theory and progress in history involves a recognition that certain phenomena remain unexplained, and that this recognition is likely to continue even as more is explained. Even Hawking admitted that achieving a theory of everything would still only mean that a few could describe the current unexplained phenomena sufficiently that the theory's broad outlines could be grasped by the many, and thus recognized that the achievement would only answer questions by exposing mankind to new questions, just as scientific progress has always done.