This is what I find so difficult to understand from your posts - now I need to assume that you think some god can be an experiment that you can perform to your satisfaction - I do not think even pagans felt this way about Zeus, but then again they may have.
I do not think P would adjust his theology to fit any science you have in mind. He has mused over open theology, which postulates the opposite of what you suggest, in that QM is such that God can determine outcomes “from the bottom up” so to speak. This implies far more than God knowing all - it also postulates that God can add to what is, which would totally debunk you changeable outlook(s).
Our debate with open theology is to question any need that God may have to add information to the Universe - at this point in time, it can be an open theological question (pun intended).
Does the claims of gods need to be tested? Even you don’t believe in the powers of 99.9% of gods and their supernatural claims. Why is a single God the only answer? If one is possible and can’t be proven not to exist, why not 2 or more? Why is montheism such an advance?
We are going of topic again, but I will leave the decision to Brad or Christy on this one. The distinction is simple - pagans had physical representations of their gods, and this provided the proof that you seem to desire. The Christian God has made it abundantly clear that knowledge of Him is revealed and as an act of Grace. This bluntly, is a take it or leave it proposition. So yes, you can conclude there is no god and that should be the end of the matter.
The mystery to me is long standing - atheists that I know and work with simply do not show an interest in gods or God, and thus we have little to discuss on this subject - yet on this site, atheist/anti-theists seem to be the most vociferous and argumentative of just about everything else. A real mystery - and btw, you do not have a response regarding Polkinghorn’s outlook regarding you many assertions regarding QM and God. It is reasonable for us to expect a response from you Patrick, since you have been so insistent and confident of your position.
I really don’t know what Polkinghorn’s outlook is. Don’t know him. So can’t comment of his outlook. I do know that everything I read about him seems very reasonable to me. He basically says that science’s description of nature is true and you can’t rule out the possibility of a supernatural non-physical God, force, energy field. I agree with all of that. Collins and Biologos says the same but limits that supernatural entity to the God of the KJV of the bible. That’s ok with me too.
Thank you for the very cordial reply, and for reading the articles I linked. As I said, unfortunately I don’t have time to give this heavy duty material the time and attention it warrants, so I won’t any anything substantive and I won’t try to advance this conversation further. Simply for the benefit of those who want to go more deeply into this fascinating question, let me point to some of the best work that’s been done on the question of QM, cosmology, and divine action: Search CTNS | Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences. On the right side of that page, one can find the tables of contents for all five books (two of which are directly related to this thread), and if you click on each chapter you get a very specific summary. The director of this project, Robert Russell, is IMO the most thoughtful American contributor to the science/religion “dialogue.” He has a PhD in physics, so he understands the science, but he works wholly in theology. The list of contributors to this project includes some of the best philosophers and scientists in the world–people like George Ellis, Andrei Grib, Bill Alston, and the late Ernan McMullin. Obviously they could all be barking up the wrong tree, but this should be sufficient to make my point that one cannot just connect a few dots from QM to the conclusion that God can’t know what happens at the quantum level.
This is not a field in which I work myself, except around the edges as an historian. My only related publication explores Arthur Holly Compton’s views on QM and human (not divine) freedom: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2009/PSCF9-09Davis2.pdf.
