I think that the map would be one solid colour if any of the gods were real... but... I can't say that with any certainty can I. So, during the debate I've wavered between my old habit of being 'certain' and the habit I'm rapidly acquiring by posting on this forum of being a little more circumspect.

I don't believe that at any point I've actually contradicted myself though.

When I look at that visual, I see data that could be considered to support my belief that there are no gods and that religions are human constructs. It could also support that gods are real and for 'some reason' don't want it known for sure, thereby allowing much if not all of humanity to get it wrong in the detail and differ in their beliefs.

If it were one solid colour, that IMO would support that gods are real since there isn't another more reasonable explanation that springs to my mind that would explain why such a fractious species as ours would agree totally on that one issue. I worked backwards on that one and suggested that if gods were real, the map would be one colour.

I mean only if, hypothetically, the words written in the Koran are in fact the truthful inspired message of Allah.

If that were the case, why would the distribution of religion across the world be different to what it is now?

It would matter how it's known to be the truth. In a 'one colour' map scenario, my assumption is that a god has made itself plainly evident, beyond any doubt it's real just like all the things we consider real, like gravity, or air, or birds, or the moon, are real. No one questions the existence of those things, because they're real.

If that god was commonly seen, interacted with us, or in some other way was just a matter of fact, a regular old part of our everyday reality (which is how I imagine it would be) then why would anyone not worship that god or believe in a different one? The map would most likely be one colour.

the map color only seems relevant if there is someone making a claim that God is plainly evident, i don't think anyone is making this claim and that scenario (plainly evident God) certainly doesn't exist today. So, why is this multicolor map anything other then the expectation whether one true God actually exists or not?

If the Koran is the inspired and true message of Allah, as revealed to us by Mohammad and other prophets, you seem to be saying that the distribution of religion would different.

I see no reason to think that. To answer your question as to how we'd know it to be true: we would only have the same information we have now, wouldn't we.

I'm not saying that. Short of repeating what I said before, I'm not sure how else to respond.

If the map is entirely consistent with what we would expect to see if Islam were true, then I don't see that the map is evidence of anything.

Obviously if everyone had undeniable proof of God and his character then there would only be one religion, but that's just tautology, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

Why don't you read bunny's post again. It explains in one post what I've said in several different ways over many posts. Perhaps it would be easier to understand it that way.

I think this can be expanded in two ways. First is that we can say a little bit more about how we expect the purely social construct of religion to behave given what we know about the commonalities and differences between religions, and the various motivations people appear to have for religions. The result is an even tighter correspondence between what we sociologically expect and what we observe than is suggested above:
Secondly, we can elaborate on the "spiritual reality" depending on what is claimed and how it manifests. For example if it is a sort of weak theism or deism where people have a sense that the deity exists but that is about all the manifesting it does, then we would indeed expect regional localization over how they interpret this weak manifesting. However, if the deity is, say, the Christian one where we are told it has actually manifested very strongly, we might expect something else. Namely, this is a deity that inspires one correct holy book, responds to the prayers of its followers, sends prophets and the like (opposed to the fake prophets of other religions), selects leaders like the Pope (if you are catholic), etc etc etc. Given this manifestation from this alleged deity, and given the millenia that have passed since Jesus Christ, it seems reasonable to have expected and overwhelming preference for this religion and not the geographical localization we see.

So I think the correspondence with the sociological view is stronger and the discordance with the religious view is weaker than suggested. But yes, such arguments only go so far.

I think the point I'm making is still pertinent.

If the map is consistent with what we'd expect if a particular religion were true, and equally is consistent with what we'd expect to see if atheism is true, then the map is evidence in support of neither.

I think about now MB is wishing he never posted that map

The point is that it is NOT equally consistent with both views. Bunny outlined, and I expanded a bit, on why there is an asymmetry here. Now there is probably good reason to debate the limits on how compelling this all is, and it only goes so far, but I think to say it is "equally consistent" is not true.

Sure, but WHY is it consistent with every (a)theistic hypothesis? It seems unlikely this would be the case.

Ignoring the various 'stupid-god' hypotheses upthread, let's say that the major monotheistic hypothesis is something like "there is one true god who wants as many people as possible to have knowledge of Him and obey his moral commands". Given our data, we can use Bayesian reasoning to weight the probability of a naturalistic hypothesis for the distribution of religious beliefs as more likely to be correct than the theistic hypothesis.

If Islam is true, why do we expect that in the time since its conception that it would have gained more global support than it has?

Because, if Islam is true, there is an omnipotent being who wants us all to believe in him.
I take your point that the expectation of a one-color map hinges on "the real god" providing clear, unequivocal evidence. Nobody claims that, but most religions claiming to be true do make the claim that sufficient evidence is available (whether "in our hearts" or in nature).

(Note that I'm only arguing for practise - I don't find this debate particularly relevant).

But I think those religions have plenty to say about why many people reject the evidence.

Not that I'm particularly warm to those arguments, but I do think there's enough to make speculation about what the distribution of a true religion should look like rather difficult.

Sure - it is difficult (and in my opinion, should only count as very weak evidence even if the argument is accepted). But your position seems obviously expandable to "anything we observe is either because god wants it like that, or because it just is". Suddenly, there's no point looking at the evidence because it is consistent with either hypothesis.

Also, As mightyboosh has clarified, it's not about proof - it's about plausibility. If the stars rearrange themselves to spell "hey guys, I'm not kidding around - I really exist. Read the Koran" (probably in Arabic) we could deem it evidence of some newly discovered phenomenon of astrophysics in our naturalistic universe, or we could check in to the local mosque. The evidence is consistent with either hypothesis, but one has just become much more plausible.

+1

If your hypothesis fits any and every data then it can be discarded as useless.