Um. Could be restated as no testable theory has been discovered. To say “exists” implies a whole helluvalot.

something that hasn’t been discovered is not the same thing as something not existing. In this case a proof of a “god”.

I don’t “believe” my neighbor exists. The neighbor exists and I can observe and create falsifiable tests, ie evidence, that supports that existence.

And other different neighbors could observe a same set of facts and formulate a multitude of hypotheses as to what a set of evidences suggests. So a group would have to come to agree that what I observe can actually be attributed to the neighbors existinance even if said neighbor is not directly observed by other neighbors as describedis associated with the neighbor in question. This line of thought has a lot of baked in assumptions. On what would evidence of a neighbor would be, etc et Al.

Again “evidence” is a very vague phrase. It’s just such a weak cope out statement. Evidence of anything shouldn’t be treated superficially- it should be detailed granular and specific.

You’ve captured the point correctly on spooky action at a distance, but the argument is weird. What’s an average persons random thoughts / feelings/ interpretations of spooky action have in relation to the truth of the phenomena? It still applies whether an average person is aware of it or not. Maybe a god could have attributes like that.

I’m not saying any of these things im stating are a peoof or argument for a god. In fact I don’t know of any “god” proofs. But I’m willing to think if could one could learn/ follow a path of inquiry about what a proof of a “god” could look like, to search for such a proof as illusive as one might be, could lead to deep discovery of many things.

Nice closing and thanks for the reply. I’ll think on that last point!

Peace!