Who throws the dice for you?

[Anomalocaris]

There is no absence of evidence to the contrary Chuck. There is only evidence. The evidence consist of observations and a theorem which is accepted to be true.

As far as not defining what God is...Newton didn't define what gravity was. The big bang singularity or a singularity at the center of a black hole isn't defined either. 1 divided by infinity isn't defined. It is perfectly okay and sometimes even useful to discuss or think about things which are not rigorously defined.

Uh, no. Newton defined his concept of gravity well enough to specify exactly how it ought to behave for cases he has not yet observed. Furthermore he defined his concept of gravity such that its predictions can not be trivially duplicated by a comcept different from his gravity. This is incidentally the full extent required to enable his contemparies and posterity to test what he says about gravity and determine whether his concept is right or wrong, and to specify the exact degree to which it is right or wrong. For example if Kepler's laws are seen to be violated where Newton's definition of gravity predicts they would be obeyed, then Newton's gravity would thereby be shown false.

The big bang singularity is also defined to the same degree. It is sufficiently defined for it to be possible for contempary and posterity say whether his concept is right or wrong, and to specify the exact degree to which it is right or wrong. We know if something this close to this singularity in time and space does not do that, then our concept of Big Bang is wrong, or our concept of singularity is wrong.

What did you say about the god you propose that is both unique and in principle testable, and such that if it were found not be true, you would stop being a theist? If the randomness of a new quantum event does not conform to the randomness you called god, would you then admit your god does not exist? I doubt it.

Newton defined gravity well enough to enable it to add to the human knowledge base with understanding of the exact degree to which it is true, or false.

You defined god in what way as to enable humans enhance our knowledge base with determination of whether it is true or false, and the degree to which it is true?

You see, "defined" means the claims is fleshed out to the degree needed so it can in principle be upheld, or overturned.

I suspect You intentionally refuse to state your claim in clearly defined terms so there is not enough to either validate or overturn, or if it is still nonetheless overturned, you can weasel your way out ands say "well, no really, my claim wasn't here, it is over there", to be followed no doubt by "no, no, not that here, this here".

Unlike newton's gravity, or Big Bang, you claims of god not only adds nothing, it has no theoretical possibility of adding anything, to human knowledge. It can not be affirmed, it can not be falsified.

As scientists say of the most abjectly worthless garbage pretending to be a theory or hypothesis, "it is not even wrong."

You'll have to do better.

Based on your posts, you have no idea what "better" means.