I wish more Christians understood this point. The rejection of a claim does not rise to the level of a claim itself.

I've never been that impressed with Plantinga, I guess. I reckon he gives that veneer of respectability to the religion's never-ending stream of poor arguments and unsupported claims. He can't produce the god in his closet, so he seeks to knock down those who reject the idea of him and make them look foolish. That's not proof. It's what Christians offer because they lack proof. If they had that proof they'd just offer it, but they don't. So we get these never-ending streams of substitutes instead. Christians get taught from the moment they're born or convert into the religion that these represent actual proof in and of themselves. But they do not.

I say you are jumping around because I was challenging your claim that "In my view, atheists have great arguments against God, theists have great arguments for God, there are great arguments for all kinds of things. It requires testing to determine which are true (reason alone does not seem to be sufficient, in least in my view) and at this point we have no idea how to test for God."

Rather than defending this claim, you offer a way that we can test for God, namely prayer studies. I agree I don't want to get into an argument about their validity here, but surely that is jumping around if not contradicting yourself.

In any case, maybe we are using the word "justified" differently. So let's drop that word. I would argue that apart from empirical testing in an experimental context, certain arguments can be known to be good or bad via reason alone. I gave the example of the problem of evil. The second premise (as I articulated the argument in my first comment to you) is empirical but not controversial and not subject to experimentation. The first premise is entirely conceptual. I have provided a counter-example to your claim that "it requires testing to determine which things are true"

As for Spinoza's argument, regardless of whether or not it succeeds or fails, it is incompatible with Aquinas's understanding of God. So one of their arguments has to fail. Now, both arguments may compel reasonable people, and their errors (if they have any) may be difficult to ascertain, but there is a fact of the matter as to which argument fails and why.

Now, it may be the case that Spinoza and/or Aquinas's argument are each falsifiable in terms of empirical testing, in which case, this empirical testing ought to be done and until it is done, we are not justified in believing either argument (beyond maybe having a hunch or something). However, it is my contention that there are at least some arguments for and against God which are not subject to experimental testing and which can go a long way in establishing whether or not God exists. This does not mean that every argument for or against God is not subject to some sort of empirical evaluation. But the fact that some are does mean that you cannot insist on obtaining experimental data in order to have a rational position about the existence of God. The degree of certitude is up for debate.

assume that you and Kraker Jak know that a "white owl" is an euphemism for "phallus"

I did not know that. Thanks. As you may or may not know, the chess bishop is also a symbol of a phallus hence the funny euphemism for something most boys have done once or twice...."polishing the bishop" Sorry for No offense meant about the white owl.....I was referring to your avatar.

Ah, stupid me! Ah, stupid me! I forgot all about my avatar and completely misinterpreted the "white owl". I'm really very sorry about that. And you really are funny!

My avatar is so familiar to me that I completely forgot it. It was only when @Kraker Jak wrote his sentences twice that it rang a bell.
Btw: I assume that you and Kraker Jak know that a "white owl" is an euphemism for "phallus" (mostly used with regard to homosexual males). I wasn't too pleased, especially since I am a heterosexual women. But this misunderstanding on my part is now solved. Thank you!

Isaac Asimov wrote a series of stories and novels about a highly rigorous scientific system that could predict the behaviors of large groups of people over centuries of time.

Didn't make it so.

Origen once pointed out that most people lack either the skills, time, or interest to master a subject. For example, most people get by well enough without any use for natural selection or heliocentrism or most other froo-froo. You can get by without mathematics. Well-a-day. That does not change the fact of the matter: which is that mathematical truths are not established with the means of natural science.

Putting a space station in circular orbit can be done, but one more often winds up with elliptical ones. If you mean Earth orbit, you can even do it with Ptolemaic mathematics.

Dude, he's just referring to the avatar on your postings...

(4) The relevant mutations are not random, but due to epigenetic factors, cross-transfer, and other mechanisms.
Once a variant appears, and if it is not ipso facto sterilizing or deadly, the organism uses it in some fashion. This produces the illusion of being "selected" because it is "beneficial".

There can be natural mechanisms other than the one proposed by a Victorian country squire.