You posit an undetectable entity as agency.

Except, of course, that God isn't undetectable.

Post instructions and end this atheism debacle for ever!

[I referred VicD back to my previous discussion of testing for intelligence]

I can't find a test crouton in that word salad.

God is an intelligent non-physical being. In order to test for God, you have to be able to test for intelligence. That requires 1) a suitable test and 2) the cooperation of the test subject.

Computer scientists have dealt with these issues for years.

So you can't test for god.

So SETI isn't science? And a complete waste of time?

I do not think it is science because there is no reasonable bound on disconfirmation.

So, if SETI isn't science, is there a scientific test for intelligence? If so, what is it? How does it differ from what SETI does?

If there isn't a scientific test for intelligence, why do atheists insist on scientific evidence for God? What makes them think that they have any expectation that such a thing is possible?

Turing test possibly - not sure if that empirically falls as science though.

So do you now agree that science is only capable of dealing with a subset of true knowledge?

Knowledge is the intersection of belief and fact. So, no I don't agree. You're moving into belief territory.

Then what is the scientific test for intelligence?

I don't think there is one, nor is there a robust definition. Also, I would suggest it is a continuum and the break-point for having it arbitrary.

Are you intelligent?

Yes, by my own very arbitrary definition that is meaningless in any sort of informed discourse that isn't limited to yes or no boolean by intellectually stunted moderators.

How do you know that you are intelligent, since you claim that there is no scientific test for intelligence and, furthermore, that science is necessary for true knowledge? Are you now saying that there is true knowledge apart from science, or are you saying that your claim to intelligence is based on, say, wishful thinking, or delusion?

My own arbitrary criteria can't really be expressed in words. If you want to go with a formal definition, that's up to you. we'll need units, also.

It obviously escapes you that it doesn't matter what the definition is. I could just as easily use the variable x. You have claimed that x is true. But you have also claimed that there is no scientific test for x. You have also claimed that science is necessary for true knowledge.

Are you intelligent enough to see the inherent contradiction in your statements?

Then perhaps 'true knowledge' doesn't deal in nebulous abstractions.

You just said that "I am intelligent" is a true statement. You also said that "My own arbitrary criteria can't really be expressed in words". That's a "nebulous abstraction". So you just made a truth claim for a nebulous abstraction.

What is your basis for this truth claim? Are you in error, and therefore not intelligent? Or are you basing your claim on wishful, or deluded, thinking?

I'm intelligent (this thing you can't empirically define) by my own arbitrary standards. So while I may "know" it, it's not shareable nor robust. So its probably isn't "knowledge".

So you "know" something to be true but it isn't "knowledge". Do you realize just how contradictory your position has become?

When an argument ends in contradiction, as yours clearly has done, normal people start backing up the chain of reasoning to see where they went wrong, instead of continuing to flounder in error.