You believe it, bet it

Is there a two?

Abstract
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Tested the accuracy of astrological natal charts in describing the personality traits of 193 Ss (aged 17+ yrs). In Exp I, Ss provided information from which their natal charts and interpretations were constructed by astrologers. Each S then attempted to select his/her own natal chart interpretation from a group consisting of his/her own and 2 others. In Exp II, the astrologers were separately given the natal chart of a random S and a California Psychological Inventory (CPI) description of the S's personality traits along with CPI descriptions of 2 other Ss. The astrologers selected the 2 CPIs (1st and 2nd choice) that described personalities closest to the personality indicated by the natal chart. The astrologers also rated the CPIs for closeness of fit to the natal chart descriptions. Results indicate that Ss and astrologers scored at a level consistent with chance. The data support arguments against natal astrology as practiced by astrologers. (4 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

(1) http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/skeptics.htm
(2) http://www.bobmarksastrologer.com/ThePlanets.htm

I once passed a nice test in a Psychology course. I had to fill a questioneire (sp?) rating the relevance of all kinds of statements to my personality. Two weeks later, I recieved a preofessional psychological analysis, and was asked to rate the relevance of its statements to my personality. More than 80% of the statements in that analysis matched my character, some strikingly revealing things I didn't expect to be deducable from that lousy form I've sent.
Then I revealed the whole class has recieved the very same personal analysis, which mostly matched everyone's type. Those statements were clipped out of weekly Astrological reports in the papers, and indeed were phrased in such a manner that they would match everyone.

You can try it at home - Rate from 1-5 the relevance of every statement, from every horoscope in any of the papers. It would much by more than 50%, that's for sure.

Needless to say, Astrology is plain bullshit not only because it lacks any scientific basis or consistency, but because it's utterly nonrefutable.

Laws are consistent. They have their definite conditions in which they are valid, and definite observations can prove them wrong.

Astrology is inconsistent etc. Thus Astrology does not follow any possible law. QED.

As for that prior discussion, you were already explained why these forces or laws have practically no where to hide, or else you'd have to be more specific in your suggestion of their existence. As for God, as a metaphysical entity, it's not about to be revealed, or else it's not God but some other physical entity.

Religious priests are consistent (or atleast can be consistent), whereas professional Astrologists can be sued for fraud if once taken seriously.