Jadyyn: Provide a falsifiable test of God

Jadyyn,
You constantly insist that I must provide a falsifiable test of DET. Beyond the fact that this is clearly possible, and that I have done so, this is your chance to demonstrate that you are not a hypocrite. You have expressed a belief in God, so what I ask should be simple for you.

What is a falsifiable test, that I may conduct, to verify the existence of God?

Demonstrate a human zygote can be made by random events.

Also "Polonium halos" by Robert V. Gentry.
Demonstrate the polonium halos can be produced naturally.

Demonstrate abiogenesis exists in the natural or laboratory environment.

So, if any one of those things were done, you would disbelieve in God?

So, if any one of those things were done, you would disbelieve in God?

Probably... It would definitely shake my belief...

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 12:39:15 PM

So, if any one of those things were done, you would disbelieve in God?

Probably... It would definitely shake my belief...

If you cannot answer a firm yes, you have not done as asked and provided falsifiable tests. Please do so.

Quote from: Jadyyn on November 15, 2015, 03:42:46 PM

Quote from: JRoweSkeptic on November 15, 2015, 12:39:15 PM

So, if any one of those things were done, you would disbelieve in God?

Probably... It would definitely shake my belief...

If you cannot answer a firm yes, you have not done as asked and provided falsifiable tests. Please do so.

I have provided falsifiable tests. All those tests are falsifiable. A falsifiable test does not mean the results WILL be false but CAN be.

Actually, honestly, after considering your question further, my answer would be a firm no. Initially, I would say I have an open-mind so it would shake my belief. I would examine the tests and results though.

Being born-again, I have the Holy Spirit of God in me. It is a fact as real as the heart inside of you. You CAN make falsifiable tests that there is a heart inside of you. IF the falsifiable test came back false, would you believe you don't have a heart? Since you know you have one, you can be pretty certain that there is no falsifiable test that will return a false answer (xray, hearing your heartbeat, etc.). Therefore, the falsifiable tests I provided, I expect to come back as true as you would with your heart. If they don't, I would have to examine my belief and the tests themselves. If the tests came back saying you don't have a heart, what would you do?

The falsifiable tests ARE important for people who are NOT born-again though. If they come back not falsified, this would give people something to ponder.

I have provided falsifiable tests. All those tests are falsifiable. A falsifiable test does not mean the results WILL be false but CAN be.

If your definition of a falsifiable test is one which does not provide evidence one way or another then it's a pretty useless definition.

Being born-again, I have the Holy Spirit of God in me. It is a fact as real as the heart inside of you.

How do you know that? As you say, there are tests to determine if we have hearts: what may be done to confirm that you do indeed feel something tangible, and that something is God's Holy Spirit?

If the tests came back saying you don't have a heart, what would you do?

Hypothetical: it won't happen.

Quote

I have provided falsifiable tests. All those tests are falsifiable. A falsifiable test does not mean the results WILL be false but CAN be.

If your definition of a falsifiable test is one which does not provide evidence one way or another then it's a pretty useless definition.

No, it DOES provide evidence one way or another. I am saying a falsifiable test does not mean the results WILL be false. An example: Taking an Xray picture of your chest to see if you have a heart. This is falsifiable. If you take a picture and a heart exists, you falsified the hypothesis that "you do not have a heart". If your hypothesis is that "the Moon does not cause tides", a falsifiable test is to measure the position of the Moon and the tides and see if they correlate. If they do, the hypothesis is false. Both of these do NOT need to come back with falsifiable results. Surprises do happen.

Quote

Being born-again, I have the Holy Spirit of God in me. It is a fact as real as the heart inside of you.

How do you know that? As you say, there are tests to determine if we have hearts: what may be done to confirm that you do indeed feel something tangible, and that something is God's Holy Spirit?

For one, the "gifts of the spirit". When you become born-again and the Holy Spirit of God dwells in you, he brings various gifts. Not everyone has all the gifts. The more obvious gifts are gifts of healing or miracles. See (http://www.HolySpirit.tv). Others may not be obvious like gifts of tongues, knowledge, understanding, wisdom and teaching. I for one have gifts of understanding, teaching and tongues. I can break down what would be considered very difficult subjects so even children can understand them (try this on for size - a calculus exam question - two trains 200 mi apart are heading toward each other - one at 20 mph the other at 30 mph. A bumblebee flies between them at 40 mph starting at one train and bouncing off the trains when it hits them. How far does it fly? There was only one person in the class that got the right answer - and he asked "how big is the bumblebee" - 1" BTW. I explained this to my 8yr old while driving in my car in less than 5 minutes. She got the right answer too. Can you?)

Quote

If the tests came back saying you don't have a heart, what would you do?

Hypothetical: it won't happen.

Exactly my point. Some things are so certain (indisputable facts) that to suggest the opposite is hypothetical. Watch some of Andres Bisonni's crusades. He has absolutely no doubt about the Holy Spirit in him (watch his hand trembling)... and... neither do most of the thousands of other people. FYI, when I was in Florida, my mother and a friend of hers went to one of his crusades in W. Palm Beach. My mother had a shooting pain in her hip that immobilized her for short periods of time. Her friend was in such pain that she took like 6-8 pain pills per day to tolerate it. Both were cured. My mother today is in better health than all of her friends, even younger ones. The other lady has not used a pain pill since the crusade. YOU can't see the pain go away. THEY both KNOW (not just believe) it did. God is like that. Much is subjective. Objective things like Moses crossing the sea, at the time for all involved was objective, but to all of us now, it is subjective.

If you seek God you will find him, then you will know.

No, it DOES provide evidence one way or another. I am saying a falsifiable test does not mean the results WILL be false.

It provides nothing. let's take your first example: "Demonstrate a human zygote can be made by random events."
if we prove it can, you have admitted this would not falsify the idea of God. If I was as shallow as you, I could happily call this the God fantasy by your own terminology.
Your idea of a falsifiable test is apparently one that still renders the topic in question unfalsifiable.

Others may not be obvious like gifts of tongues, knowledge, understanding, wisdom and teaching.

So, the only way one can be talented at language, academics, logic or explaining things is with divine intervention? Can you provide evidence for this claim, or do you simply have an endless string of suppositions?

The more obvious gifts are gifts of healing or miracles.

Go to a magic show. There are a lot of documentaries on faith healers too: placebo effect to outright dishonesty. Peter Popoff springs to mind. As for pain pills, there are a lot of explanations: a lot of people become addicted, and most of the reason they insist they need them is withdrawal. Given a good reason, they can still stop. Can I prove this? No, just like you cannot prove it false: and cannot prove that God and healing was to blame. Nor can you prove that just because someone has supernatural powers (if they do) that these powers come from God.
Presupposition, all of it.

How far does it fly?

After a hasty mental calculation, 200 miles, with negligible size.

Some things are so certain (indisputable facts) that to suggest the opposite is hypothetical.

So? This does not prevent falsifiable tests: and they only became certain through testing.

Quote

No, it DOES provide evidence one way or another. I am saying a falsifiable test does not mean the results WILL be false.

It provides nothing. let's take your first example: "Demonstrate a human zygote can be made by random events."
if we prove it can, you have admitted this would not falsify the idea of God. If I was as shallow as you, I could happily call this the God fantasy by your own terminology.
Your idea of a falsifiable test is apparently one that still renders the topic in question unfalsifiable.

No, Biblically, God created man some 6,000 years ago. If you can prove that random events can create a zygote (every human came from 1 cell), then God didn't create a fully formed man in a single day. God, disproved. A falsifiable test.

Quote

Others may not be obvious like gifts of tongues, knowledge, understanding, wisdom and teaching.

So, the only way one can be talented at language, academics, logic or explaining things is with divine intervention? Can you provide evidence for this claim, or do you simply have an endless string of suppositions?

No, these are supernatural gifts that the person did not previously possess, or possess to such a high degree. Like I said, they may not be obvious. Healing and miracles are obvious.

Quote

The more obvious gifts are gifts of healing or miracles.

Go to a magic show. There are a lot of documentaries on faith healers too: placebo effect to outright dishonesty. Peter Popoff springs to mind. As for pain pills, there are a lot of explanations: a lot of people become addicted, and most of the reason they insist they need them is withdrawal. Given a good reason, they can still stop. Can I prove this? No, just like you cannot prove it false: and cannot prove that God and healing was to blame. Nor can you prove that just because someone has supernatural powers (if they do) that these powers come from God.
Presupposition, all of it.

Like I said, much of this is subjective. It worked for me, my mom, her friend, and lots of people in the videos. If you think it is magic, go for it. It does not harm any of us that were blessed. I only harms you and your loved ones (the ones you won't send to Bisonni because you believe he isn't real). BTW, speaking of that, 5 other of my mom's friends were invited to go to Bisonni with us. They didn't because they thought it wasn't true. One is dead, the rest are very sick. Oh well, they win! And so will you! Congratulations! I'm not even going to discuss hell for eternity - if you only new the truth of why we are here...

How far does it fly?
After a hasty mental calculation, 200 miles, with negligible size

Actually 160mi - 1". My 8yr old figured it out in her head sitting next to me in the car in <5 min.

No, Biblically, God created man some 6,000 years ago. If you can prove that random events can create a zygote (every human came from 1 cell), then God didn't create a fully formed man in a single day. God, disproved. A falsifiable test.

Can does not mean did. If what your test was meant to be, is to demonstrate that 'random events' (a simplification of the alternative model, but even so) did make humans, then fair enough, though you still need to reckon with the fact you admitted that you might not be convinced.

No, these are supernatural gifts that the person did not previously possess, or possess to such a high degree. Like I said, they may not be obvious. Healing and miracles are obvious.

So, people cannot pick up skills without God? It's fine if they're not obvious: but if you are to be consistent, then they must at least be testable.

Like I said, much of this is subjective. It worked for me, my mom, her friend, and lots of people in the videos. If you think it is magic, go for it. It does not harm any of us that were blessed. I only harms you and your loved ones (the ones you won't send to Bisonni because you believe he isn't real). BTW, speaking of that, 5 other of my mom's friends were invited to go to Bisonni with us. They didn't because they thought it wasn't true. One is dead, the rest are very sick. Oh well, they win! And so will you! Congratulations! I'm not even going to discuss hell for eternity - if you only new the truth of why we are here...

Presupposition, with a dose of confirmation bias, and ignoring the beneficial, mundane effects such trips can have, even assuming strictly naturalistic system. 'Go right ahead' is a fair response, but you are being inconsistent. Clear evidence is what you require.

Actually 160mi - 1". My 8yr old figured it out in her head sitting next to me in the car in <5 min.

Yeah, I know what I did wrong. My simplified model treated one as stationary and the other as going at 50, but that's nonsensical because the fly's speed would be tricky.
Your 8 year old didn't figure it out in their head; as you said, you explained it to them. Anyone who's walked through a problem could generally do it easily. That's nothing special, I just don't feel like deriving and summing an infinite series. Well, infinite up to an inch, but take that as an epsilon.

Jrowecocksucker
You are the proof. The fact your an ever evolving original piece of work. There may be others just as phucked up as  you,  but your still the original of your phucked up self.

Quote

No, Biblically, God created man some 6,000 years ago. If you can prove that random events can create a zygote (every human came from 1 cell), then God didn't create a fully formed man in a single day. God, disproved. A falsifiable test.

Can does not mean did. If what your test was meant to be, is to demonstrate that 'random events' (a simplification of the alternative model, but even so) did make humans, then fair enough, though you still need to reckon with the fact you admitted that you might not be convinced.

As I point out, these are secular tests for non-born-again people. As you pointed out that the heart inside you would only be hypothetically untrue because you KNOW you have one, a born-again person KNOWS God is in them. If you can be convinced you don't have a heart, then I can be convinced the Holy Spirit of God (YHWH) is not in me. I assumed you are not born-again and therefore may not believe in God (YHWH) of the Bible. If you did, you would not be asking to prove him (Andres Bisonni, for one, would not ask us to disprove God). These tests are for you and others like you. If you can't falsify them, then you should seriously ponder whether God exists.

Quote

No, these are supernatural gifts that the person did not previously possess, or possess to such a high degree. Like I said, they may not be obvious. Healing and miracles are obvious.

So, people cannot pick up skills without God? It's fine if they're not obvious: but if you are to be consistent, then they must at least be testable.

Some are more easily testable than others. The healing and miracle ones would be. Probably most REAL things that people FEEL, like the pain my mom and her friend felt or other people's depression, can not be tested. These people have had these symptoms for years and for them, God is real. If you watch some of the videos, some things people were cured of, right on the spot, probably could be medically verified - assuming you go to the doctor before and after to check. Knowledge, understanding and wisdom would be hardest to prove. Speaking in tongues would be also difficult if the tongues are not everyday languages. You would also have to rely on testimony of people that the person did not speak that language beforehand.

Let me give you another example. A man somewhere up toward NY city was tasked by a newspaper to write an article on "Speaking in Tongues". He gathered several people who claimed they could and several language scholars to analyze the "languages". After these scholars analyzed the recordings, nothing conclusive came out as they could not say the languages were gibberish but did have rhythms like normal languages do. One of the people speaking the tongues told him that if he became born-again, he would get gifts as well. He did. He was also able to "speak in tongues" - a language he could not beforehand. There are those with the "gift of interpretation of tongues" as well that can translate. So as you can see, some evidence, perhaps most, is subjectively proven. That is how God works. He wants faith - ACTING on belief. He then reveals himself personally to you.

Quote

Like I said, much of this is subjective. It worked for me, my mom, her friend, and lots of people in the videos. If you think it is magic, go for it. It does not harm any of us that were blessed. I only harms you and your loved ones (the ones you won't send to Bisonni because you believe he isn't real). BTW, speaking of that, 5 other of my mom's friends were invited to go to Bisonni with us. They didn't because they thought it wasn't true. One is dead, the rest are very sick. Oh well, they win! And so will you! Congratulations! I'm not even going to discuss hell for eternity - if you only new the truth of why we are here...

Presupposition, with a dose of confirmation bias, and ignoring the beneficial, mundane effects such trips can have, even assuming strictly naturalistic system. 'Go right ahead' is a fair response, but you are being inconsistent. Clear evidence is what you require.

*I* have clear evidence for myself as does my mom and her friend. It does nothing for you though. It is just testimony - an eye witness account like that used in courts. I can not describe what "wet" feels like. Sorry, but you will have to jump in the pool to see what "wet" is for yourself.

Quote

Actually 160mi - 1". My 8yr old figured it out in her head sitting next to me in the car in <5 min.

Yeah, I know what I did wrong. My simplified model treated one as stationary and the other as going at 50, but that's nonsensical because the fly's speed would be tricky.
Your 8 year old didn't figure it out in their head; as you said, you explained it to them. Anyone who's walked through a problem could generally do it easily. That's nothing special, I just don't feel like deriving and summing an infinite series. Well, infinite up to an inch, but take that as an epsilon.

No, 160mi minus an inch (when the trains are an inch apart and the bee stops moving - if the bee was zero inches long, it would be exactly 160mi). What you did was somewhat right just like the rest of the students in the class.

It is simple. If one is stationary, the other would appear to go 50mph. 200/50 = 4 hours. At 40mph, the bee would go 160mi. No need for calculus. This was a test for the calculus class students to THINK and redefine problems rather than just to solve what is given before them. Some solutions become literally, child's play. For my daughter, I wanted her to redefine the problems she encountered in life and see how impossible or difficult ones could possibly become simple to solve. That was my intent. I asked my daughter - How much is 200/50? How far will something go in 4 hrs at 40mph? It took longer to explain the question and redefine the problem than to answer it. THAT is what I meant by being able to explain difficult concepts to children (gift of teaching). I have many more examples. I am a mentor. That is what I do.

As you pointed out that the heart inside you would only be hypothetically untrue because you KNOW you have one, a born-again person KNOWS God is in them. If you can be convinced you don't have a heart, then I can be convinced the Holy Spirit of God (YHWH) is not in me. I assumed you are not born-again and therefore may not believe in God (YHWH) of the Bible. If you did, you would not be asking to prove him (Andres Bisonni, for one, would not ask us to disprove God). These tests are for you and others like you. If you can't falsify them, then you should seriously ponder whether God exists.

I've pondered, and decided otherwise. But again, for the heart, I have a falsifiable test. For example, i could press a hand to my chest, and feel it beat. That doesn't prove it's a heart, but if I don't feel it beat, I know I don't have one.
You have not provided anything analogous. You have also claimed that all reasonable beliefs held should be governed by whether they have a falsifiable test: your own logic and definitions refer to God as a fiction. You have not provided a falsifiable test: you've provided tests that can themselves be falsified, but that don't falsify what they're trying to test.

Is God an exception to this rule of yours, or do you have a falsifiable test?

If you watch some of the videos, some things people were cured of, right on the spot, probably could be medically verified - assuming you go to the doctor before and after to check.

And yet faith healers are notoriously cagey about testing. Surely they'd rejoice at the chance to confirm and glorify God?

*I* have clear evidence for myself as does my mom and her friend. It does nothing for you though. It is just testimony - an eye witness account like that used in courts. I can not describe what "wet" feels like. Sorry, but you will have to jump in the pool to see what "wet" is for yourself.

Unless the placebo effect governs. I can verify what wet is easily: but you have decided that some particular sensation or set of sensations is God, and appeal to that, rather than justifying the much more important claim of what that implies God. And further, this still isn't a falsifiable test: unless you believe anyone who goes to a healer must be cured, in which case it'll be very easy to mount a firm disproof.

It is simple. If one is stationary, the other would appear to go 50mph. 200/50 = 4 hours. At 40mph, the bee would go 160mi. No need for calculus. This was a test for the calculus class students to THINK and redefine problems rather than just to solve what is given before them. Some solutions become literally, child's play.

No surprise, it's a well known fact people who've studied a topic end up overcomplicating it. Besides, that's hardly a hard answer to explain.

The Monty Hall problem might be a better one. You're on a game show, and there are three doors. Behind two are goats, behind one is a car. You have a one in three chance; you pick door A. Then the game show host opens one of the doors, and shows that a goat's behind it. The host then gives you the chance to stick with the same door, or switch
Should you stick with your current door, or switch?

Conventional logic says that the odds are the same either way, but in fact you have better odds if you switch.
That problem's trickier to explain: but even that one's decently simple.

I've pondered, and decided otherwise. But again, for the heart, I have a falsifiable test. For example, i could press a hand to my chest, and feel it beat. That doesn't prove it's a heart, but if I don't feel it beat, I know I don't have one.
You have not provided anything analogous. You have also claimed that all reasonable beliefs held should be governed by whether they have a falsifiable test: your own logic and definitions refer to God as a fiction. You have not provided a falsifiable test: you've provided tests that can themselves be falsified, but that don't falsify what they're trying to test.

Is God an exception to this rule of yours, or do you have a falsifiable test?

God is spirit (not material - like a soul). The direct proofs of this would be in the spirit world. This is why humans, that have souls and spirits, CAN test this themselves directly - and do. This is the born-again experience. The only way objectively to prove God is how he affects the material world. Gifts of knowledge, understand and wisdom would be difficult to prove because they too are non-material. Gifts of healing and miracles can prove God, but Satan (who was with God in the beginning and saw what he did) tries to mimic God and humans (charlatans) also do. So to prove true healing and miracles, you first have to tread through human and satanic deceit. It is there but whenever the real thing comes up, people like you bring up the deceit as some sort of proof that the real thing doesn't exist. Satan, through his spiritual powers, does perform certain things that people without spiritual discernment can't differentiate. He has his limitations because he is not God. For example, he can tell a psychic where a murder weapon is located, exactly, because probably a demon was there when the murder took place and knows everything. That is totally different from God being omniscient. That is why even the best psychics can't win lotto or the stock market.

Anyhoo.. Other than personally experiencing God as a spirit, secularly in the physical world, you will have to rely on the tests I gave you. If you do not believe in healing or miracles in the physical world, there will not be any test you will believe.

Quote

If you watch some of the videos, some things people were cured of, right on the spot, probably could be medically verified - assuming you go to the doctor before and after to check.

And yet faith healers are notoriously cagey about testing. Surely they'd rejoice at the chance to confirm and glorify God?

You mistakenly think this is all about the healers. God wants people to ACT, not just sit in armchairs. The people who ACT and go and get healed receive their rewards. Those that do nothing don't. They want God to knock on their doors and come to THEM. Personally, I have told this to sick people, but they rather go to their doctors and be in pain and dying than to go to God. I don't get it. It is like Jesus when he walked the Earth. People that went TO HIM got their miracles. The "smart" ones that said it was all BS, didn't. I guess they won. Bisonni demonstrates what he does and what happens at his crusades. That is sufficient. For the people at the crusades, God is sufficient. He does not need to debate and prove himself. Jesus answered "debaters" so well, they went away. To people like me, born-again, he has proven himself.

I pity people like you because you don't know what hell will be like. From people who have said they went there and God brought them back, they said they would not wish it on their worst enemy. The hell is INSIDE their minds. They can't ever escape it. They don't notice others in hell near them. They will "live" out eternity rehashing stuff INSIDE their minds. Look at it this way, you will have all of eternity to discuss and perfect your DEF in your own mind. You will argue and debate it with yourself for eternity. I hope your really believe in it or it will be hell.

If you do not believe in healing or miracles in the physical world, there will not be any test you will believe.

If they can be faked, then they're not tests. You have acknowledged that they can be faked.

So, your only falsifiable tests of God are then spiritual: but people of countless religions, that contradict yours, claim to have experienced God. So we can also see very clearly that there is no strictly reliable gauge of whether such a spiritual feeling or experience is genuine: clearly there are means to fake that experience which can have people claim the same.

I ask again, what falsifiable test is there?

For the people at the crusades, God is sufficient. He does not need to debate and prove himself. Jesus answered "debaters" so well, they went away.

And yet God wants all to believe: you'd expect healers to be perfectly happy to have their power confirmed.

I pity people like you because you don't know what hell will be like.

So, in lieu of an answer, you have a threat?

Quote

If you do not believe in healing or miracles in the physical world, there will not be any test you will believe.

If they can be faked, then they're not tests. You have acknowledged that they can be faked.

So, your only falsifiable tests of God are then spiritual: but people of countless religions, that contradict yours, claim to have experienced God. So we can also see very clearly that there is no strictly reliable gauge of whether such a spiritual feeling or experience is genuine: clearly there are means to fake that experience which can have people claim the same.

I ask again, what falsifiable test is there?

Yes, some things can be faked but not all. The Egyptians could simulate what Moses did to a degree (for example, adding blood to water and turning water into blood - how can that be tested easily by people at the time?), but at some point, they could not (gnats being created from dust - creation is beyond the abilities of humans or demons). For example, Jesus raising someone from the dead after 3 days. Satan/demons are particularly difficult without spiritual discernment because they are supernatural as well. You have to know Satan and human limits. But there are also real healing and miracles by God (unfortunately, most are subjective). I would find several people with medically testable ailments that CAN NOT be cured by humans or demons, and go to Bisonni and see what happens - as a falsifiable test.

Satan/demons possess people so they think they have God in them also. Also, Satan/demons perform supernatural things for people. Again, without spiritual discernment, most people can't tell. Satan does not want people going to God, so he makes it particularly difficult for people to believe in God.

So, without personally experiencing being born-again (spiritual) or the healing/miracles (most subjective), we have what I originally posted. Although these are falsifiable, they don't actually prove God's existence. If these can not be naturally explained, they require a supernatural explanation. These are beyond the abilities of humans and Satan/demons (fallen angels). Therefore, God would be the explanation and proof of existence. I would say, if these are not sufficient, I don't know of others. That does not mean there isn't any, just that I can't come up with more.

You may find this article interesting concerning the proof/tests of God (specifically the numbered items):

The Nature of Gods (or Other Beings)

Note that the word "god" (capitalized or not) has not been mentioned since the introductory section. Everything since then has been about the problems of proof when evidence is ambiguous, theoretical frameworks are lacking, and there may be several interpretations that explain the data equally well.

The only question about a god that is meaningful or interesting is whether or not there is a god who interacts with the universe. Pantheism, the idea that the sum total of everything that exists is a god, is trivial. Deism, the idea that a god created the universe but does not interact with it, is of no imaginable interest or relevance.

In practical terms, deciding the existence of a god amounts to testing for the existence of some rational and extremely powerful supra-human being or beings. Whether it's a single infinitely powerful deity, a number of finite but still powerful supernatural beings, or a powerful natural alien civilization, the practical problems of evidence are the same. Whether or not a god exists may not be testable by scientific methods, but there are very similar questions that science certainly can address. Suppose, instead of asking whether there exists an infinite, omnipotent deity acting by supernatural means, we ask if there is some very powerful intelligent Entity interacting with our planet. The Entity need not be infinite or omnipotent, merely far more powerful than we are. The Entity need not act supernaturally, but merely by means of natural laws we have not yet discovered, or technology we have not yet developed. To free ourselves from any distractions imposed by the supernatural, let's consider the hypothesis of a purely natural, but extremely powerful and knowledgeable Entity.

What's the Entity's agenda? It could be malevolent or sadistic, seeking to harm us or cause prolonged suffering rather than destroying us outright. That might be a plausible explanation for war, famine, and disease. Or it could be dispassionate, watching to see how long we can avoid destroying ourselves. But let's consider only the possibilities that the Entity is benign and actively trying to help us. Furthermore, it is knowledgeable enough about human psychology and the workings of our planet that clumsiness or ignorance are not an issue. If it had tried to prevent World War II, for example, it would not have inadvertently triggered some worse alternative history. It would not, say, have gotten Hitler into art school only to have Stalin conquer Europe. And remember, this Entity is not a deity; it is merely a very intelligent and very powerful, but 100 per cent natural, being.

Why wouldn't the Entity reveal itself? We can easily think of a host of reasons why an intelligent super-being might conceal its existence or make it non-obvious. It might, of course, have ulterior or selfish motives, and the epistemological issues get really interesting if we allow that there might be multiple entities with conflicting agendas. But let's restrict ourselves to the case of an Entity without ulterior motives (or at least ulterior motives harmful to us). There will be some reasons that make sense to us. Then we have the possibility that the Entity has reasons that make no sense to us or that we cannot comprehend. But let's stick with the answers that we can comprehend, since those are the only ones we can discuss profitably.

• If the Entity openly reveals itself, then what? Will it continue to respond openly to every request for information or guidance? Will it respond to requests to endorse one nation's agenda over another's, or one political party or social class over another? Will it respond to requests to use its advanced powers to eliminate disease or aging, stop environmental degradation or eliminate poverty? Will it respond to requests for information about itself, or explain why it does or does not act in certain ways?
• If the entity does keep responding after initial revelation, would it soon end up micromanaging the world or destroying human initiative? Would so many humans become helpless dependents or lapse into nihilism that even those who retained their initiative found it impossible to get anything done? It may be logically impossible for the Entity to reveal itself openly without scrambling the world beyond repair. Open revelation might perturb human society in ways that conflict with the Entity's aims.
• If the Entity revealed itself openly but thereafter remained silent, might we not after a few centuries dismiss the event as a fabrication or a myth? And if that's the case, how can we be sure events we now ascribe to myth weren't in fact real?
• The Entity may be communicating all the time, but since we are constantly immersed in the signals, we simply perceive them as natural background noise. Fish don't know that they're wet.
• The Entity may be deliberately selecting for those individuals who can detect its communications and who choose to interpret its faint signals as communications.
• The Entity may communicate only with specific individuals on specific occasions, for its own specific purposes.
• Whether it's secular philosophies like Marxism, Naziism, radical environmentalism or militant atheism, or religious movements like the Inquisition, radical Islam, or Christian fundamentalism, people who believe they have an objective basis for dictating the behavior of others are the most spiteful, vindictive, and downright evil people on the planet. Just imagine what would happen if certain people had real objective evidence for their beliefs. Maybe the Entity wants to protect us from such people.

If the Entity doesn't communicate unambiguously, can we still somehow test for its existence somehow? It seems pretty clear that a controlled experiment is out of the question:

• The Entity is not likely to submit to human control. It will not respond to demands that it perform replicable actions merely to meet our standards for verification. The Entity knows it exists. Why should it care whether it meets our criteria? "Wow, I don't meet your criteria for proof? I'll slink back to the mother ship, curl up into the fetal position, and suck my thumb for a while."
• To use terms that seem crass from a human perspective, the Entity may find it demeaning to be expected to perform on demand in an experiment, or to submit to human criteria for proof, or justify its decisions.
• The Entity will certainly not reveal itself in ways that allow that knowledge to be used against it, say to overpower it or block its actions. Even the idea that there is a benevolent Entity might inspire humans to be complacent about pressing problems, secure in the belief that the Entity will rescue them. People might use the existence of the Entity to rationalize their own selfish actions by claiming to do them in the interests of the Entity, or rationalize their desire to dominate others.
• What about people willing to cooperate with the Entity? The Entity may communicate freely with them, only to have their claims dismissed by others as delusional or mistaken. The Entity may choose not to communicate with them, or communicate only sparingly, because open communication might influence their behavior adversely. They might, for example, come to consider themselves elite or privileged. Or the Entity may not be able to communicate openly with them because doing so would furnish information to people with ulterior motives.
• Since there are a host of sound reasons why the Entity might not reveal itself openly or participate in an experiment, that leaves us with observing nature and trying to tell whether or not there is some pattern in nature that we can detect. From the Entity's perspective, it may be manifesting itself in ways so obvious that only a very rudimentary intelligence could miss it.
• Humans are extremely ingenious about ferreting out even faint patterns. If the Entity is concerned about ways that knowledge of its existence might be misused, it might manifest itself subtly enough to defeat even sophisticated statistical tests. Or it might use the inherent ambiguity of complex reality to camouflage its actions. Maybe its version of an intelligence test is to see whether some people choose to see evidence of its existence or not.
• Is it superfluous to add that irrational actions people commit because of their belief or non-belief in the Entity have nothing at all to do with whether or not the Entity actually exists?

And those are the problems facing us in trying to determine the existence of a completely natural Entity. Maybe someday it will slip up, nod off at the wheel, and some interplanetary probe will sneak up on its base undetected, and then we'll know. Or maybe it will decide the time has come to communicate overtly. Or maybe not.

Quote

For the people at the crusades, God is sufficient. He does not need to debate and prove himself. Jesus answered "debaters" so well, they went away.

And yet God wants all to believe: you'd expect healers to be perfectly happy to have their power confirmed.

Yes, and God has provided what he considers enough proof throughout the ages. As he says, those who really seek him will find him. Others, just don't really care. Why should he care about them? True healers/miracle workers don't need that. The evidence is in what they do. False ones do want that. That is all they have.

Quote

I pity people like you because you don't know what hell will be like.

So, in lieu of an answer, you have a threat?

Not a threat. Just an observation. Assuming you are not born-again, what I said will most likely happen. If you don't believe it, fine. It doesn't affect me and my future either way.

I would find several people with medically testable ailments that CAN NOT be cured by humans or demons, and go to Bisonni and see what happens - as a falsifiable test.

So what ailments would you suggest? And are you saying that this would falsify God, if it he were not able?

Again, without spiritual discernment, most people can't tell.

How do you tell? Your primary explanation seems to be Born-Again, but that itself is something that must be justified. How did you test that? is it a simple feeling, and how do you know it is genuine? Do you simply believe it could not be faked, and do you accept that countless others with contrary beliefs would think the same?

You may find this article interesting concerning the proof/tests of God (specifically the numbered items):

It is interesting, but flawed. The numbered items need to be true for your God: but they're not. Simply knowing something exists does not mean you need to obey it: the first example I can think of is Abraham and Isaac. God appeared to command, but it was a test: which implies it was possible to disobey.
God could happily reveal himself, walk down the street, have a sit in the Supreme Court to occasionally say "Personally I think..." and none of that would impact our freedom. We're still perfectly free to choose whether or not we want to disobey: only we can do it informed.

Yes, and God has provided what he considers enough proof throughout the ages. As he says, those who really seek him will find him. Others, just don't really care. Why should he care about them?

Edging close to No True Scotsman. "You can't have honestly sought him, because you didn't find him!"
Besides, 'enough proof' is only ever going to be a subjective statement. It's impossible to believe in something you're not convinced by: no choice involved. For example, if I asked you to believe the Earth was flat, even if just for a minute, could you? You you honestly say you could drop your belief in RET, and genuinely and honestly think the world was flat?
Or do you hold to RET too firmly?

Reading my previous post and having thought about it some more, this is what I came up with:

• God, the creator of the universe and mankind, is not like some bozo DE fantasy.
• He doesn't want to be thought of as a hypothesis or a theory.
• He wants to be thought of as THE CREATOR, FATHER of believers to whom He will grant ETERNAL LIFE and to live with him for ETERNITY.
• As a result, I actually do not believe there is a falsifiable test for God - intentionally.
• There are however, tests to prove God exists - like being born-again, the gifts (healing/miracles) and the tests I provided initially. These are sufficient to PROVE God exists.
• God wants FAITH - ACTING on belief - people coming to Him.
• He has provided sufficient acts in this world, that if people really want to know God, they will find Him.
• For those that don't want to play God's game (salvation), well, they can and will literally go to hell.

These are my thoughts on this.

I really don't want to waste any more time on this. If you feel you won, Great! Post it!

Until we meet... may God open your eyes and heart... I hope you find Him and prove, to yourself, He exists.

I actually do not believe there is a falsifiable test for God

That says it all, really. You demand rigorous science, except when it's a belief that makes you comfortable: then you reject it.

Goodbye. I've demonstrated the problems with your claimed tests, and your No True Scotsman. No one wins in a situation like this.