The predictions being made for a divine being.
1. Proof of intelligibility in the universe. Suppose that is the case. That leaves the minor issue of the leap from a physical intelligence to a deity. The better argument with a well known precedence would be of a physical intelligence.
So the intelligence made itself too? Did it exist first in order to plan and create itself? If we are being consistent, then that intelligence cannot be that very thing for which we are seeking an explanation for its existence in the first place--matter! A physical creator is just another section of the universe. It is no more an explanation for the universe than the universe is an explanation for the universe.
2. Existence itself. A tautology. God made us because we are here.
A tautaolgy is easily demonstrated where it exists. The "test" you provided is nothing more than facts that are consistent with the claim. From the simple fact of existence, the "hypothesis" of a creator has been made immemorially, because From nothing,
nothing comes. The fact that there is
something and not nothing is proof that there was never "nothing". That demonstrates a cause has always been there. That is why existence is a proof. Like I told Bittertruth, the argument for God is predicated on the premise that we actually exist and are not simply imagining our existence. If we exist, then so does God.
None if these claims are testable.
That is just an arbitrary claim. If a test is an explanation for the facts, then how is intelligence and existence not a "test"? Just because you declare it?
Granted. There is reality outside of objective reality. I experience it too. But I don't expect one to accept it merely because I can imagine it. Mental gymnastics is just that.
Again, you are making false implications. WHICH argument has been made to you based on a personal subjective experience? Is it that you just
expect that such claims will be made? I dont get why you keep making this point about an argument from "subjective experience" as proof and then going ahead to argue against it. If conclusions are mental gymnastics, so are scientific theories. After all, you only believe them because facts don't contradict them. How does that make them more "testable" than God? It is easy to show that facts do not contradict God and in fact point to him; the beginning of the universe, the unlikelihood of the universe, the intelligibility and order of the universe, these are all facts that are consistent with an intelligent creator
beyond the universe Somehow, they don't constitute "tests", but not so where scientific theories are based only in explanations of facts, where they become magically "testable".
The scientific method claims no certainties. In fact uncertainty is its engine. If that goes away, we are heading back to the caves.
That is true, irrelevant though. Because no one is attacking the scientific theory. Just the yet unsupported claim that it holds an
exclusive place in determining truth.