It makes sense to me that if a god interacts with our universe it would be possible to develop a scientific test to detect that god.
Agreed.
One would need to detect some action or change with no apparent cause that behaved as if a conscious agent were the source. You're probably aware of the STEP study that tested the efficacy of prayer in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and found no difference in outcomes between those prayed for and those not getting prayer unless they were told that they were being prayed for, in which case they did worse.
Suppose it had turned out that those who were prayed for and didn't know it did much better than those who got no prayers. How can one account for that? We'd have demonstrated a salutary effect that resulted from prayer that occurred differentially in those getting the prayer as if somebody were responding to our prayers. That would support the claim that some mind hears us and has power over the world.
Of course, we're only going to be able to detect a god that intervenes in our world. We wouldn't expect to detect the god of the deists, a noninterventionist deity, but then again, being aware of its existence would be interesting but not useful knowledge.
Science's axiom is methodological naturalism. So you are making a category error.
I think it's you that's made the error. See above.
If a god can affect nature, it is part of nature. Nature is the collection of things that can affect one another, also called reality. The critical thinker won't give the theist the pass he expects for his gods simply by declaring them immune to empiricism and reason. Those are things one says about a false belief to explain the absence of evidence for it.
You seem to like dragons. Do you know about Sagan's invisible dragon in his garage? It's also undetectable, so it's as off limits to empirical testing as gods, likely for the same reason:
The Dragon in My Garage
Exactly .. I didn't say 'eenie, meanie, minie, mo'
But you did dodge the issue: "Whatever your reason for believing a god exists, you've chosen to believe in the god of Abraham over the alternatives for a reason. For most people, it would be a combination of being acculturated into such beliefs as well as a desire to avoid extinction with death and be protected and get wishes granted while still alive"
You claim to be telepathic now?
Do you know what telepathy is? It seems not.
No, I'm not telepathic. I'm educated, observant, and a former Christian myself. I guess you don't know what Abrahamics want if you think it requires telepathy to know.
Something is comforting to you about the god you chose to believe in, and it doesn't matter to me which of those apply to you.
You say you are happy to be persuaded by reason, yet you have clearly decided no argument for God can ever clear the convoluted hurdles you have so carefully constructed against all possible runners and riders.
What hurdles? That he expects convincing evidence before accepting god claims. I present the same "convoluted hurdles" - critical thought and empiricism. It's how one minimizes accumulating incorrect and useless beliefs.
False god beliefs consume valuable resources if they lead to a religion, and if they don't, what difference does it make to believe in gods?
Do you need to know what real phenomenon is denoted by the word 'Time', before looking at your watch?
Yes. Don't you? Why would one even wear a watch with no concept of time?