> If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it. Not necessarily. The "usual tools" presume objects that react minimally to observati

> If claim 2 is true we should be able to use the usual tools to know it. Not necessarily. The "usual tools" presume objects that react minimally to observation, and they tend to loose potency when the objects being studied are aware of observation and especially of its intent. You see reactions to this fact in psychological research, which often has to mislead experimental participants to get them to react less unnaturally, for instance. If God exists, He knows of your tests and may choose to have you point your "usual tools" somewhere else when He's "having an observable effect."