Hello soulcalm17

[Sheldon]

That's not true, I am very confident someone called Richard will exist in the future. It's pretty easy, I can even claim their father will have the name Robert, and the odds are pretty good I have predicted something accurately. 



No it can't, not rationally anyway, you are a) using what appears to be an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and b) violating Occam's razor. 



...and human, we already know humans write books. Assuming your claims about how accurate the predictions are can be objectively verified (I am dubious), and further assuming that it came true exactly as described (again I am dubious), and then assuming the probability can be calculated as extremely unlikely, all you'd have is a mystery you couldn't explain, to suggest the lack of an explanation evidences anything is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. 
 

Firstly, you have not demonstrated that any entity other than the humans who wrote those books, are even possible, secondly the notion one can call this imagined and unevidenced entity whatever one likes, is an entirely subjective opinion. 


 I disagree, since you assigned those attributes arbitrarily, it is little more than begging the question fallacies. You need to:

1) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence any deity or anything supernatural is even possible. 
2) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that a deity exists. 
3) Demonstrate sufficient objective evidence that it si the deity you imagine to be real. 

Your argument here is fallacious and thus irrational. It is also of course used by adherents of other religions to make identically fallacious claims about other deities humans imagine to be real. It's poor reasoning, using weak arguments.

Arguments about the cause of something do not have to bring about that thing physically.
For example:
1. When I find a book, I conclude that the book must have been designed by a human. I do not need to find the specific human who wrote the book. But my conclusion is true.
2. You must have come from your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather. I do not need to physically meet your grandfather's grandfather's grandfather's grandfather. But my conclusion is true.
3. The universe began with the big bang. I also do not need to see with my eyes at this moment how the big bang happened. But my conclusion is true based on the traces of the universe.

That collection of straw men doesn't seem to address anything in my post? 

You still haven't answered my question, can you demonstrate any objective evidence that a deity exists, or that a deity is even possible? You also didn't address the fallacious reasoning I explained, that you used in your arguments?

1. A straw man fallacy since I never claimed otherwise, and this also contradicts your earlier claim that koran cannot be entirely human in origin, or is divinely written. 
2. Straw man fallacy, since I never claimed otherwise. 
3. I think the word begin is not apropos, for fairly obvious reasons, so I would say the universe that we currently observe has a point of origin explained in the scientific theory of the big bang. The second sentence is another straw man fallacy, as I have not claimed otherwise. The last sentence is pretty vague, scientific theories are broad explanations of naturally occurring phenomena, that are supported by a weight of objective evidence, and that have been subjected to experiment and test to confirm them, so it would be unreasonable to deny something that the evidence suggests is an irrefutable fact. 

NB note that a scientific fact is just describing something science knows to be true, based on an overwhelming consensus among scientific experts in the related fields, and irrefutable in does not of course mean immutable, whilst the objective evidence cannot reasonably be denied, it remains open to critical scrutiny, as part of the methods of science demands that all ideas, no matter how well established, remain tentative in the light of new evidence, and thus open to continuous critical scrutiny. So this is the antithesis of faith based subjective religious beliefs, that claim to hold immutable and infallible truths.