Challenge: any theists encouraged to read and respond

[screwtape]

The supernatural, by definition, defies the natural rules of probability. 

Oh?  I've never, ever heard that definition.  Where is it defined thusly?  I think that is a convenient ad lib on your part.

of, pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
Probability is a natural law.  There are three laws of probability; the supernatural defies the second in a system assumed to operate under natural laws.

? the supernatural defies the idea the the probability of the entire sample space is 1?  What the heck does that even mean?  You're making a paradox.  If a thing is impossible, the probability of it is 0.  You are saying, it's not.  That is meaningless. 

And relate this back to the origin of the statement:

4. The gullibility of people has no bearing on the probability of something being true.  One can improperly base belief in something real as they can in something imaginary.

True, however, the point remains that people can, and often are, fooled by other people.  In light of that, is it more likely that some people were gullible and believed the stories about Jesus and passed them down, even though the stories weren't true, or that the very laws of nature were overturned in one section of the ancient middle east some 2000 years ago?  I'm talking again about reasonable doubt here.  Which is the more likely situation? 

edit - removed weird remnant from composition.

[Ivellios]

Why would it be less reasonable to present an empty box?

It'd be less reasonable to guess an empty box.  Because when one sets up a game, "Here's a box, guess what's inside and you win!" one normally presents a nonempty box. 

I think there's something that was missed in this little discussion. I think the correct analogy isn't someone presenting a box and saying, "Guess what's inside of it!" It's insead like this: You find a cube. You find no seam in which to open it, so you have no way of knowing what's inside, if anything's in it... if that's even possible. It could just be one salt crystal colored black for some reason but to you, it looks like a box, so you guess what's inside. There are people that go around telling others the "truth" about what's inside the "box".

Also Mooby, if you don't feel like repeating yourself on why you choose to believe what you believe, quote one of your old posts like this:

Why I (Mooby) am an agnostic Christian.

Then all they have to do is click the bolded, "Quote from:" line

[Mooby]

Why do you say this?  Why not 'I don't know if the ancient Greek pantheon exists'?

Beliefs  and knowledge claims are two different spectrums. In this case I lack both belief and knowledge, but felt "belief" was a better descriptor for my post.

And I asked you what it is. Well, what is it? What is your excuse for believing a claim that hasn’t a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to support it?

Again, not in this thread.

Has anyone in all of human history ever shown your God to be real?

I don't know. Many have claimed it, and I'm not arrogant enough to write them all off, but I lack the ability to verify it.

I did. My question wasn’t a straw man. Here is the conversation:

3sigma: The total lack of a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to show that your God is real is why any reasonable person wouldn’t believe it.
Mooby: And yet many, many people do believe it. Are they all unreasonable?
3sigma: Great, another fallacious argument from popularity. Many people also believe that Santa Claus is real or that astrology is true. Is that a sound reason for you to believe in them as well?
Mooby: Go back and read what I was actually responding to. I made no reference to the above straw man.

I gave you a good reason why you shouldn’t believe your God is real. You didn’t then provide some sound evidence or sound arguments to prove your God is real. Instead, you replied that many, many people believe it and implied they couldn’t all be wrong.

No, I asked where thy stand with regards to your "reasonable person" claim, as generally a reasonable person claim does not exclude 85% of the world. You claim that no reasonable person does X, yet the vast majority of the world does X, so who the hell is this reasonable person you speak of? This is why I asked if you were setting up for a NTS reply.

At no point did I attempt to draw any conclusion about God's existence from the population. If you think you saw such an argument, you need to read my post a third time.

It is nonsensical to state that you don’t know whether your beliefs are true when belief is the acceptance that something is true.

Yet agnosticism has existed since recorded history, so clearly there are others who do not find the concept of beliefs and knowledge being on separate axes nonsensical.

You claimed to have a personal relationship with your God, Mooby. It isn’t possible to have a personal relationship with something that doesn’t actually exist so the validity of your claim depends on the actual existence of your God.

Correct

To validate your claim that you have a personal relationship with your God, you need to prove that your God actually exists, but, of course, we know you’ll never do that because it is imaginary.

Actually, it is because I am a strong agnostic.  How do you know God is imaginary?

[nogodsforme]

Gods are imaginary until there is some valid evidence that they exist. Same with witches, ghosts, elves, bakas, chupacabras, Yetis, swamp monsters, vampires, werewolves, and formerly dead re-animated carniverous zombies.

As a kid you could believe in all of the above with no evidence other then movies, and be scared out of your wits by them. As a traditional villager in a 3rd world country, you could likewise believe the legends passed down from your ancestors. But as an adult person with modern education, the internet at your fingertips and critical thinking abilities?

No. You can't believe in any of these things. They are imaginary. Until and unless some valid evidence appears: not a strange feeling, a dream, a story, an old legend, or a movie. Because if you can believe in one of these things with such weak evidence, why not all?

Do you cross your shoes under the bed at night to keep the bakas away? Maybe you should start.

[Ivellios]

I'm glad you didn't mention the Loch Ness monster. Everyone knows Nessie is real!

[3sigma]

Again, not in this thread.

Yet another evasion. Very well, here is a thread in which you can explain why you believe something without a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to support it.

I don't know. Many have claimed it, and I'm not arrogant enough to write them all off, but I lack the ability to verify it.

You know, I think if someone had ever shown your God to be real then it would be common knowledge by now. After all, it would be a pretty big deal if someone had shown that there really is some omniscient, omnipotent being that actually created the Earth and all life upon it then came within a hair’s breadth of wiping it all out with a global flood—among other prodigious and miraculous feats. And yet, we don’t see this stated as fact in any reputable text books or taught in university courses on the natural world so I suspect that no one has ever, in all of human history, shown that your God actually exists.

No, I asked where thy stand with regards to your "reasonable person" claim, as generally a reasonable person claim does not exclude 85% of the world. You claim that no reasonable person does X, yet the vast majority of the world does X, so who the hell is this reasonable person you speak of? This is why I asked if you were setting up for a NTS reply.

At no point did I attempt to draw any conclusion about God's existence from the population. If you think you saw such an argument, you need to read my post a third time.

Ah, I see my mistake. I wasn’t careful enough in the way I expressed myself.[1] Perhaps I should have said “a person behaving reasonably” or “an intellectually honest person” instead of a “reasonable person”, but I thought that the following sentence—which you chose to omit when you quoted me—made it clear what I meant by “a reasonable person”. I said, “Yes, of course people are unreasonable to believe something without a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to support it.”

Yet agnosticism has existed since recorded history, so clearly there are others who do not find the concept of beliefs and knowledge being on separate axes nonsensical.

If you don’t know whether your God is real then perhaps you should call your feeling that it is real a wish, a hope or a desire instead of a belief.

 

How do you know God is imaginary?

Because no god is present to my senses. God exists only within my imagination as a concept or abstraction. It is just a storybook character. It lacks factual reality. I suspect it is the same for every other sane person in the world. If you disagree then go here and tell us why.

1.

I keep falling into this trap when talking to religious believers. It is so difficult to word statements in a way that is not open to some misinterpretation by religious believers that allows them to quibble. Readers here may be wondering why I keep tediously writing “sound evidence and sound arguments” instead of the lighter and more conversational “evidence and arguments”. I’ve learned from bitter experience that If I ever omit the qualifier “sound” then religious believers will immediately respond with all kinds of misapprehensions, fallacies, misrepresentations and other PRATTs that just bog the conversation down. I’ve found that if I always use the qualifier then it usually limits the responses to obvious evasions, as we’ve see from Mooby in this thread.

[DTE]

To the OP: I laid an open challenge to Christians before you ever logged on to the intrawebs.

[Mooby]

Gods are imaginary until there is some valid evidence that they exist.

Imaginary things are by definition not real (dictionary.com if you're wondering, jetson.)  Are you trying to imply that things magically become real when we find evidence of them?

Very well, here is a thread in which you can explain why you believe something without a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to support it.

Thank you.  Since you are so insistent on this matter, I just might humor you.  However, I am going out of town on Sunday, and I doubt my abilities to wrap it up in 1-2 posts, so I will abstain until I get back.

You know, I think if someone had ever shown your God to be real then it would be common knowledge by now.

Um... it seems to me that God is common knowledge, as the average person believes in God.

And as I said earlier, many people have claimed to have been directly shown that God exists, and many more indirectly shown.  So I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion.

If you don’t know whether your God is real then perhaps you should call your feeling that it is real a wish, a hope or a desire instead of a belief.

Um... no.  None of those are valid descriptors of my beliefs.  You are confirming my suspicion that you do not correctly grasp agnosticism.  Is there any way I can help explain it to you?

Because no god is present to my senses. God exists only within my imagination as a concept or abstraction.

Is everything that is not present to your senses and that currently exists as a concept within your mind imaginary?

[3sigma]

Um... it seems to me that God is common knowledge, as the average person believes in God.

And as I said earlier, many people have claimed to have been directly shown that God exists, and many more indirectly shown.  So I'm not sure how you arrive at your conclusion.

I meant it isn’t common knowledge that someone has shown[1] that your God is real. Did you honestly think that I was saying the concept of God isn’t common knowledge or is this another case of your quibbling to evade the point of the argument?

Sure, many people have claimed to have shown that your God is real, but I’m using shown to mean proven and I would think you’ll agree that no one has ever proven that your God is real otherwise we wouldn’t be having this conversation. If it were common knowledge that the existence of your God is a proven fact then there would be no disagreement, but it isn’t a proven fact, is it?

Um... no.  None of those are valid descriptors of my beliefs.

We shall see, if and when you respond in the other thread.

Is everything that is not present to your senses and that currently exists as a concept within your mind imaginary?

I am certainly imagining something if it exists as a concept in my mind, but isn’t present to my senses.

For example, I’m currently imagining an apple. It isn’t present to my senses at the moment so the mental image I have of it exists only within my imagination. So it is with your God. It isn’t present to my senses. However, the difference between an apple and your God is that I can walk into the kitchen and pick up an apple. I can see it, feel it, smell it, taste it and if I tap it with my finger, I can hear it. I can never do any of that with your God and neither can you or anyone else. Your God is imaginary.

Now, you may ask, what about something less tangible—radio waves, for instance. Admittedly, I can’t see, feel, smell, taste or hear radio waves directly with my senses. And yes, I would be imaging it if I thought I could hear radio waves directly (as some with a penchant for metallic headgear are prone to do), although I have heard stories (possibly apocryphal) of people accidentally irradiated with high-powered radar hearing a buzzing or crackling sound. That aside, one normally can’t hear radio waves directly so how do we know they are real? Well, we can detect them with instruments. We have instruments that can detect, measure, demodulate and decode radio waves and present that information in a form we can perceive with our senses. They’re called radio receivers. There is no God receiver. There is no instrument that can detect the presence of your God. Your God is imaginary.

1.	in the sense of demonstrated or proven

[nogodsforme]

Gods are imaginary until there is some valid evidence that they exist.

Imaginary things are by definition not real (dictionary.com if you're wondering, jetson.)  Are you trying to imply that things magically become real when we find evidence of them?

Imaginary things are not real in that they only exist in the imagination. They do not exist in reality. That is what "not real" means. There is nothing actually there, instead of something.

For example, before computers were invented, people wrote science fiction stories about powerful electronic brains with all this information stored in them.[1] They were not real, only existed as ideas in the stories, and there was no evidence of their existence.

But when people invented computers and built them for real, they were no longer imaginary. There is now evidence of their existence, so you could say that yes, they magically became real. (If by magic you mean people and their ability to create stuff.) When people invent or discover something, and there is evidence of that something, it becomes real. 

Now you may want to complicate this discussion by asking if microscopic organisms were real before people had the instruments to detect them. Of course they were real, because they had real effects in the world. People got sick from them, were able to use them to make cheese, wine, and bread, saw that food spoiled because of them, etc. There was evidence for their existence.

Same thing with distant planets, dark matter, gravity, etc. They all have real effects in the world even though people have not always had the instruments to detect them or the knowledge to explain them.

When people use their incomplete knowledge to explain things, like thinking thunder is the sound of gods fighting, or believing that witches cast spells to make people sick, that may be the best explanation at the time. When you get a better explanation, you can discard the other ones. We no longer need ghosts, witches, gods or other mysterious beings to explain why people win the lottery, get malaria, survive an accident or have nightmares.

Some people have a very hard time discarding gods, even though they have no observable effect on the world, and we have much better explanations for just about everything gods are supposed to do. 

1.	Ironically for this conversation, one Asimov story IIRC was about the most powerful computer in the world. When completed, the people asked it, "Is there a god?" The machine replied, "There is one now."

[Mooby]

If it were common knowledge that the existence of your God is a proven fact then there would be no disagreement

You mean like how there's no disagreement over proven facts like evolution, the moon landing, and the Holocaust?

I am certainly imagining something if it exists as a concept in my mind, but isn’t present to my senses.

Are quarks imaginary?

There is no God receiver. There is no instrument that can detect the presence of your God.

Were radio waves imaginary before we created radio receivers?  After all, it's not like things pop into existence the moment we detect them.  If you would like a God receiver, why not build one?

Same thing with distant planets, dark matter, gravity, etc. They all have real effects in the world even though people have not always had the instruments to detect them or the knowledge to explain them.

Were people always aware of these effects?  Like, if you had asked someone 200 years ago, "What effects can you point to that are directly attributable to tardigrades," would there have been an obvious "correct" answer?

[JeffPT]

Um... it seems to me that God is common knowledge, as the average person believes in God.

No Mooby.  The average person (that 85%) believes in 'something'.  That 'something' varies from person to person, from culture to culture and from past to present.  So, when examining that, what direction does it information lead you?  What theory best explains that phenomena?

Here are the two (maybe two and a half) possibilities that I think are the most likely.  There are probably others (aliens created religion as a tool, etc), but lets just focus on these 2.

1. The theory that one person or one group got it right and everyone else is simply doing it wrong.
1a. The theory that one person or group got it right and everyone else is misinterpreting their experience with their god or gods.   
2. The theory that all people who believe in 'something' are presenting with a similar form of mental delusion that simply manifests itself in a cultural way, and that no form of god or gods exist. 

Theory 1 and 1a are functionally the same, so let's just lump them together and call them theory 1.  Whether they are flat out doing it wrong or just misinterpreting it, they're still doing it wrong. 

The fact that we have no evidence to separate out which person or group has it correct in theory one seems to be a barrier to claiming that as the most likely case; while theory 2 explains in great detail the reason that there is no evidence present to separate one particular religion from the pack.  When you add in the fact that science is beginning to present the religious phenomena as simple brain chemistry, that all religious people feel just as strongly about their god or gods as the next person, that there are many different and mutually exclusive holy books out there claiming to have the truth, that people tend to believe the same thing about god as their parents and the people within the culture they grew up in, I just don't see 'I believe in the Christian God' to be a logical stance to take. 

I have to ask you Mooby.  In all seriousness... Given the facts that we have to work with, which of those 2 theories, in your opinion, presents the most evidential, explanatory theory for the religious phenomena?  As an self proclaimed agnostic, I can't possibly see how theory 1 would be your pick.  You must admit that any sort of personal experience that you could possibly have is completely nullified as evidence by the reported personal experiences of people who practice other religions. 

[Mooby]

Well Jeff, this is going to be my last post for the next week or so, so I'll leave you with some parting thoughts:

Going off your scenario, I'd actually pick Option 1.  Our species has always been quite adept at trial and error, and if we haven't found the solution yet, we will one day.  I think it's a bit premature to just throw our hands up and say, "It's all for naught."

Of course, Option 1 (or even 1a) doesn't really fit me since I'm not an exclusivist.  As I mentioned before, it's not "my god" or "their god," it's just "God."  So no, I don't feel others' personal experiences nullify my own.  In fact, when I hear of Hindu miracles or speak to devout Muslims, it strengthens my resolve via shared experiences.  I would love it if everyone had these experiences, regardless of belief system.

Lastly, you mention science, but surely you've realized by now that I do not see religion as a scientific endeavor.  Rather, it's its own subject with a very rich history.  It's a shame Maggie got herself banned, because she knows the nuances of this history far better than I ever will, but the more I learn, the more fascinated I get.

Hrm, now I feel that I should leave some sort of hook for you to think about, so we can dive right into the fray when I return.  Let's see...

What are your thoughts on the Münchhausen Trilemma?

Have a wonderful week,
Mooby

[3sigma]

You mean like how there's no disagreement over proven facts like evolution, the moon landing, and the Holocaust?

I meant there would be no disagreement between us over the existence of your God if someone had ever shown it to exist.

Are quarks imaginary?

No, we have instruments to detect quarks. There is no instrument to detect the presence of your God because your God is imaginary.

Were radio waves imaginary before we created radio receivers?  After all, it's not like things pop into existence the moment we detect them.  If you would like a God receiver, why not build one?

Radio waves were real before we could detect them, but anyone saying they could detect radio waves before any detector was built would have been imagining it just as surely as you are imagining you have a relationship with your God. No God detector will ever be built because your God is imaginary. If you think your God is real then please respond to this thread and prove it to us (and yourself, for that matter).

[magicmiles]

Radio waves were real before we could detect them, but anyone saying they could detect radio waves before any detector was built would have been imagining it just as surely as you are imagining you have a relationship with your God. No God detector will ever be built because your God is imaginary. If you think your God is real then please respond to this thread and prove it to us (and yourself, for that matter).

What distinguishes radio waves, before they were detectable, and God? How can you arbitrarily say God will never be shown to exist when you have just conceded that not being able to detect something is not proof positive that it simply doesn't exist?

Seems like a leap of faith on your part.

[3sigma]

What distinguishes radio waves, before they were detectable, and God? How can you arbitrarily say God will never be shown to exist when you have just conceded that not being able to detect something is not proof positive that it simply doesn't exist?

Seems like a leap of faith on your part.

As far as imagination goes, there is no difference between radio waves before they were detected and Mooby’s God. Neither had/has been detected. Mooby is imagining his God. His God is imaginary.

I don’t know whether you’ve noticed this, but I am usually careful to say your God whenever I’m speaking to religious believers. I am always referring to what they think of as God. Their particular God is entirely within their imagination because it has never been objectively present to their senses (or anyone else’s, for that matter). Any sense they have ever had of their God has been entirely due to their internal feelings. They have never actually seen, heard, felt, smelled or tasted their God directly. They have only imagined it.

I didn’t actually say, “God will never be shown to exist”. Those are your words, not mine.  However, I see that my statement, “No God detector will ever be built because your God is imaginary” was not specific enough. I should have said, “No God detector will ever be built for your God because your God is imaginary” to avoid misinterpretation. Mea culpa. Think of it as a prediction, if you like. I challenge Mooby or anyone else to build one and prove me wrong.

I also challenge Mooby to respond to this thread to explain why he believes his God is real when there isn’t a shred of sound evidence or a single sound argument to support his belief. We shall see whether any theist ever responds to that thread, but I don’t hold out any hope of that.

[magicmiles]

I didn’t actually say, “God will never be shown to exist”. Those are your words, not mine.  However, I see that my statement, “No God detector will ever be built because your God is imaginary” was not specific enough. I should have said, “No God detector will ever be built for your God because your God is imaginary” to avoid misinterpretation. Mea culpa. Think of it as a prediction, if you like. I challenge Mooby or anyone else to build one and prove me wrong.

I beg your pardon, I did mis-quote you.

[HAL]

What distinguishes radio waves, before they were detectable, and God?

That's easy magic - radio waves were predicted to exist before they were detected. But it wasn't just someone proclaiming "Hey I think radio waves must exist!". It was mathematically worked out with a sound theory -

Radio waves^Wiki were first predicted by mathematical work done in 1867 by James Clerk Maxwell.[1] Maxwell noticed wavelike properties of light and similarities in electrical and magnetic observations. He then proposed equations that described light waves and radio waves as waves of electromagnetism that travel in space. In 1887, Heinrich Hertz demonstrated the reality of Maxwell's electromagnetic waves by experimentally generating radio waves in his laboratory.[2] Many inventions followed, making the use of radio waves to transfer information through space.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_waves

That's what distinguishes radio waves from a deity. Now, to match that you are going to have to present a theory that a god exists, and then verify it for us.

Care to accept that challenge?

[magicmiles]

That's what distinguishes radio waves from a deity. Now, to match that you are going to have to present a theory that a god exists, and then verify it for us.

Care to accept that challenge?

I can't verify it any more than you can verify the universe, or multiverse if you wish, was started by something other than an intelligent being of some type. 

[HAL]

I can't verify it any more than you can verify the universe, or multiverse if you wish, was started by something other than an intelligent being of some type.

Shifting the subject, as you are doing, doesn't detract from the answer to your question. It's just a common means that theists do all the time here when they get answers they don't like.

You asked a question and I responded with the answer. You don't have a predictive theory of god or means to verify it, as the men who did so for radio waves.

[magicmiles]

I can't verify it any more than you can verify the universe, or multiverse if you wish, was started by something other than an intelligent being of some type.

Shifting the subject, as you are doing, doesn't detract from the answer to your question. It's just a common means that theists do all the time here when they get answers they don't like.

It wasn't that I dis-liked the answer. It's a logical enough answer you gave, I suppose. But I am making the point that if theists are asked to provide verifiable evidence for God, so should atheists be asked to provide verifiable evidence for something other than God. Isn't that reasonable?

You don't have a predictive theory of god

That isn't true - I have listed my reasons for belief in God many times. And need I link to some of the bigger apologetics websites? Surely not.

 or means to verify it, as the men who did so for radio waves.

I can't verify it in the same manner, you are correct. But, as I said above and I think quite relevantly, neither can you verfiy that the univese began by some other means.

[HAL]

It wasn't that I dis-liked the answer. It's a logical enough answer you gave, I suppose.

You "suppose"? Strange word to use.

But I am making the point that if theists are asked to provide verifiable evidence for God, so should atheists be asked to provide verifiable evidence for something other than God. Isn't that reasonable?

Yes.

You don't have a predictive theory of god

That isn't true - I have listed my reasons for belief in God many times. And need I link to some of the bigger apologetics websites? Surely not.

I'm not aware of a single verifiable test that predicts a deity. Has anyone else heard of one?

I can't verify it in the same manner, you are correct. But, as I said above and I think quite relevantly, neither can you verfiy [sic] that the univese [sic] began by some other means.

Where did we get off radio waves onto the theory of how the universe started? That's simply a strategy to deflect the conversation from the one I was answering. When theists do this it's very aggravating to be honest.

[magicmiles]

How can you verify a predictive theory? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

I agree that I can't verify God's existence, but I can certainly predict it. Not in the same way that radio waves were predicted, but its not as if the idea of God has nothing going for it besides fanciful thinking.

And a question about how the universe started is highly relevant to the discussion, because what has any atheist really proved by pointing out that a theist can't verify God's existence if they themselves can't verify any alternate explantion for the universe's beginnings?

[HAL]

How can you verify a predictive theory? Isn't that a contradiction in terms?

Your question simply means you did not read the link I gave you on the prediction and verification of radio waves. That's a very basic question and there are many websites that can answer that - just google your question.

I agree that I can't verify God's existence, but I can certainly predict it. Not in the same way that radio waves were predicted, but its not as if the idea of God has nothing going for it besides fanciful thinking.

I can't verify invisible pink unicorns exist but I can certainly predict it. Watch -

"I predict invisible pink unicorns exist"

See how easy it is?

And a question about how the universe started is highly relevant to the discussion, ...

No it's not. It's a strategy to deflect away from the point I made. Theists do that all the time.

If you want to start a discussion about that subject I invite you to start a new thread.

[magicmiles]

Your question simply means you did not read the link I gave you on the prediction and verification of radio waves. That's a very basic question and there are many websites that can answer that - just google your question.

OK. I just read this article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Predictive_power

and you are right, I am unaware of any such predictive theory.

I can't verify invisible pink unicorns exist but I can certainly predict it. Watch -

"I predict invisible pink unicorns exist"

See how easy it is?

That's a straw-man ( I think), because you know full well that theists have more in their armoury than that. If you want me to link to some articles which discuss the probability of God, I can do that. I sure don't have time to discuss them all myself.

If you want to start a discussion about that subject I invite you to start a new thread.

OK, I will start one in the science section.

[HAL]

That's a straw-man ( I think), because you know full well that theists have more in their armoury than that.

I know that?

God has never been tested for or verified to exist, so no, I don't know "full well" that you have more than that.

If you want me to link to some articles which discuss the probability of God, I can do that. I sure don't have time to discuss them all myself.

Not interested in god's probability. I'm interested in a testable predictive theory of a god's existence that independent people can perform. Any person - atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. should be able to independently run the test and all should come up with the same answer.

Got one?

[3sigma]

OK, I will start one in the science section.

Don’t bother. I’ve already started a thread where you can validate your belief in your God. Please go here and give it your best shot.

[magicmiles]

Not interested in god's probability. I'm interested in a testable predictive theory of a god's existence that independent people can perform. Any person - atheist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. should be able to independently run the test and all should come up with the same answer.

Got one?
[/quote]

No, I don't. Neither do you for ???'s existence. You know: ???? - the cause of the universe.

Or do you? I started a thread in 'Science'.

[magicmiles]

OK, I will start one in the science section.

Don’t bother. I’ve already started a thread where you can validate your belief in your God. Please go here and give it your best shot.

I already started the one in science. That link doesn't work for me - just takes me to the main page.