SpiderWoman
If God made Himself absolutely undetectable, He would be what Poly calls “the Divine Weasel”. Fortunately, He has made Himself detectable from at least one closed reference frame.
You are wise to hold out, especially since there is no reason to assume that the science epistemology in any way intersects the revelation epistemology. As I said before, if you want repeatability of what I have experienced, then be me.
Love it! 
By the way, about your sig, (“Spidey says: here I am!”), I don’t know whether you’re aware that Jesus said this:
Lib. I see no way that this provides a more compelling argument for the existence of God than it does for the existence of any other conceivable being. Can you develop it a bit more compellingly?
Yeah, or so says what someone else wrote!
So you talk to your god the same way we converse with each other? Would you mind showing us the transcript of that correspondance(with his written permission beforehand, of course)?
Oldscratch commented:
Uh, how about:
In direct response to this idea, numerous persons down through the years have fought and some have died in order to give us the privilege of debating this sort of stuff instead of accepting humbly the views vouchsafed us by a Supreme Leader or whatever the Queen’s Council of Bishops think we ought to think…and to have the dubious privilege of choosing between Al and Dubya come November.
Quite a bit of matter depends on that idea. Have you seen the size of the IKE?
Ideas are perhaps the most powerful things under our control…when they are.
Oh, and slythe, while you addressed this to Lib., I would like to answer, in the same tone it was phrased
That sounds really fair. Send me His written permission, and I’ll send you a transcript. 
Spiritus
I should have included an emphasis, thus:
“That makes for a wonderful paradox, doesn’t it? The most compelling argument for God’s existence as a Free Moral Agent is the inability to prove His existence objectively!” My point was not about His existence, per se, but about His moral agency, which, of course, He extends to us by way of our own closed reference frame.
Slythe
I don’t know what you mean. I’ve supplied numerous times my correspondence with Him in the matter of Gaudere. Did you want me to, say, ask Him what I should say to you specifically, and then share that with you? Or were you asking for other correspondences that are unrelated to you?
Ah, I get it now, Lib. Still don’t see the argument, though.
If God were manifestly obvious in all reference frames how would that affect God’s potential to act as a free moral agent.
Because we are God.
So?
the manifestation would them simply create self-awareness. Are you arguing that self-awareness negates the possibility of free moral action?
And lib says yet again that we are God.
And he is absolutely right, provided that “we”, “are” and “God” are defined loosely enough.
In the same light, Red Skelton is Linda Lovelace.
Cats are Dogs.
The moon is green cheese.
Word games. 
Spiritus
No, the opposite. That other-awareness would. Our free moral agency is contingent on our moral reference frame (our consciousness) being closed.
Heaven is a reunion.
Slythe
I suppose from your reference frame, it would appear that way. I can recall when it did from mine.
I thought you were arguing God’s moral free agency. I am quite certain that is what you posted, at least. Is your position that God’s ability to act as a free moral agent is contigent upon ours? Or are you know arguing that the inability to objectively demonstrate God’s existence is an argument that humans are moral free agents?
Well, it’s both. Hear me out, please.
Part of the confusion you’re experiencing is surely my poor exposition, but another part might be like the “-” sign in math: look! it’s subtraction! no! it’s negation! no! it’s an additive inverse!
God, in one context, is the Absolute Moral Reference Frame, the Categorical Moral Perfection. In another, He is we, acting out our moral play in the amoral context of the atoms. His Spirit is within us, and we are stewards of it.
From my reference frame, words have meanings, and when I say these words, I try to use the common definitions of them to better communicate with others. When I use an uncommon definition of a word or phrase, I inform those with whom I am speaking, so that we may use a common frame of reference.
In regard to your “We are God” phrase, it makes sense only if you discard the common definition of “we” (i.e. human beings), and “God” (i.e. an eternal, all powerful and omnipotent being that supposedly created human beings), and subtitute vague terms for both.
Like I said-word games.
Ok let me try this. Every being on earth can percieve me, they can percieve the image that is me. wheteher by sound, taste, touch, smell, hearing, or by seeing. Everyone and every “living” being can percieve me. That is the evidence I use for existence of my self. If god is percieved by everyone on earth I will accept his existence. As he is not, I will not accept his existence. Libertarian made the point that you have to actually BE libertarian to percieve HIS god. That is not required for anything that is real. Anyone can percieve a real object. As everyone else in the world agrees that they can percieve me using one of the six sxenses I conclude I am real. That is the most basic test of reality.
Then please define the reference frame within which our inability to objectively demonstrate the existence of God is a compelling argument that God is a free moral agent.
All I am asking you to do is present the full argument that you find compelling. Now, I admit that I have been assuming it is an argument to which reason can be applied. If it is instead a purely subjective or faith-based position, then simply say so.
Of course, I will likely respond that I hardly think that qualifies as the “most compelling argument for God’s existence as a free moral agent.”
If God was a big rock, from which a booming voice came, giving instructions, and pronouncing the doom of any who spoke to it, it would be very easy to prove God’s existence. Just point at the rock, and say, “See, that’s God, ask Him.” It would also be pretty much a given that as the Rock spoke, so you damn well better do. (Assuming that the Divine Rock did more than talk.)
So, at that simplistic end of provability we have very little in the way of free will. You don’t have any choices. You do what the Rock says, and you don’t have to listen or pay attention to anything else. God obviously exists, and every thing God wants is pretty obvious as well. You just follow orders. In fact, your intellect is pretty much superfluous beyond the ability to follow the instruction of the Rock. Faith is pretty pointless, since there can be no doubt. If the Rock wants good works, no doubt the Rock will instruct you on what qualifies as good works. Free will is pretty much an exercise in self damnation.
If God is entirely spiritual, having no interaction with the universe other than the spirit, then the matter of provability is entirely moot, since the spiritual is necessarily perceived individually and only by those who have a spiritual aspect themselves. It is also makes the matter of faith entirely subject to free will. The nature of good, and the possibility of good works is, likewise subject to free will, within the frame of reference of the physical universe. Any intersection of the nature of “good”, and God is what exists in spirituality. Proof of existence is (as this thread examines) necessarily unavailable, because of the nature of proof, rather than the nature of existence.
To complete the examination, if God does not exist at all, the physical universe is unaltered from the second case, and the nature of spiritual orientation of free will toward any identified set of values as “good” is entirely delusional, but otherwise, also unaltered from the second case. Provability still does not exist.
oldscratch, did you actually see The Matrix?
You seem to be assuming that the information you recieve through your senses is an accurate reflection of some objective reality. While it is pretty much impossible to function without this assumption, it is an assumption.
You could be a human brain in a jar, kept alive with machinery oxygenating your blood. Electrodes are hooked into all the nerve endings which would normally go to your sensory apparatus, and a big computer is simulating all those people who acknowledge you exist. Your consensus reality could be an illusion.
Or you could be a frog brain in a jar. Human beings might never have existed outside the computer simulation that is feeding your senses. Those hands of yours which you can wave in front of your face are simulated. Your own brain in your own head, in which you assume all sensory information is being processed, is simulated.
Or you could something completely undescribable, somewhere completely undescribable. All that you hold to be true about reality, atoms, fields, our laws of physics etc. could be part of a simulation in a different universe where they don’t exist.
Okay, so this is a useless idea and you may as well treat your subjective reality as real, especially when not doing so HURTS. But you can’t prove it’s objectively real.
This case has no impact upon free will, in and of itself.
Godstone would seem to be an effective coersive force, but that does not prevent my free action. I simply have another factor to consider in making my decisions. While “Free will [may be] pretty much an exercise in self damnation,” it can still exist. Ghandi opposed British rule knowing that they had power over him and would punish him.
If God exists and is entirely spiritual
Well, “having no interaction with the universe other than the spirit” disqualifies most of the Old Testament, so I assume we are not talking about a Christian conception. Still, I see nothing in your examination of this case that actually addresses the question of God’s (or man’s) free moral agency.
For instance, it might be possible that all of those and only those whom God’s spirit has touched in a particular way have faith. This would mean faith was not a free moral choice for humans, merely a “programmed” reaction to a particular touch of God’s spirit. Likewise, one might argue that the Spirit that is God lacked sentience entirely and was merely a channel (or a catalyst) through which other spirits experienced change. That would begate any question of free moral action by “God”.
I doubt either of those possibilities matches your personal subjective experience, but your personal subjective experience cannot be called a compelling argument for the attributes of a God whose objective existence crosses al reference frames.
if God does not exist . . .
This, of course, makes sense only if one has first defined “good” in terms dependent upon “God”. In fact, if one has done so then the non-existence of God would indeed make such an orientation delusional. However, it is trivially possible to define “good” without reference to “God”.
In no way, however, does the above reflect upon free will. It is entirely possible that a universe without God could exist in which mechanistic principles determined every action and result. Inhabitants of such a universe would have no free will, though they might enjoy the illusion of free will. Some people, in fact, believe that such is the case with our own universe.
Slythe
Whew! That’s a relief.
I’m glad to learn that you are merely incredulous. I was afraid that you were refusing to allow undefined terms, which would have required us to throw out the Induction Axiom and most of geometry.
You likely missed the many times that I have defined God as Spirit[sup]1[/sup], and we as dual-natured beings, with physical bodies and spiritual essence. God is not made of atoms, therefore, the attribute that we share with Him is our Spirit. Since God is not made of atoms, atoms are not real.
[sup]1[/sup] “Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit… God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth… The spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.” — Jesus of Nazareth