As per the senses, yes you are correct testable. But in order to verify those tests we have to be able to sense in some way shape or form the results. The natural sciences are limited in that nature. I can't feel, I'm using the abstract idea of feel not that of the sensation we get through our skin, the results of an experiment.

The point that I'm making here is that religion needs to stay where it belongs. In the realm of behavioral side of the argument. I'd argue that anyone who said, "God created the universe" means that they are uninterested in the science behind it and that it is immaterial to their belief in God.

I'd argue that most religious don't associate God with controlling the atoms of the universe and setting it to begin. Sure they get comfortable with this explanation if it is presented long enough (2k years or so), but it doesn't matter to the abstract idea of God.

The "proof" of God comes not from what we can prove through observation (using our 5 senses + any tools we can create), but rather through a sense, a feel, a concept that there is a sixth sense in our minds. There is something we cannot touch.

In that case there should never be a proof for or against God. It's an abstract idea coming from feelings that we have of a spiritual core.

Also, philosophical debates have a great deal of practical consequences. If someone takes a philosophy to heart they can do a lot of damage. I know that many people argue that religion has caused harm, but it isn't the religion, but the institution that harms people. I think people can use anything to justify their behavior, God or no. It is when people objectify others and treat them as such that we have a problem.

So I'd suggest that we could look at the different disconnected cultures in the world that have "religion" as a set of evidence that there is something in us that wants to believe in an external being.

My theory is that there is a God, and anyone is free to disagree.

That is at the core of religion. The only truth I hold is that the later part of that statement is the most important.

Also, I realize that a hypothesis like that above is subjective and not capable of being dis-proven, thus most scientists worth their salt should and would never waste the energy to create an instrument to test it.

But that doesn't mean that it isn't possible or a valid explanation.

I freaking love this topic :-) P.S. Thanks for the post, I love reminders of things long since forgotten, I've been working in the industry way to long and most religious people aren't interested in this kind of discussion.