What is Real Science?

GOD DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE SCIENCE

COME ON PEOPLE

OK
Now you're confusing me.
Are you saying God is a scientist?

I think Revelation refers to his colleagues as wearing white robes, so sure, why not

Now I am confused.

What are you asserting, Smiley?

Are you equating these two? I probably don't need to point out the error in that.



Pseudoscience. It's a well-described phenomenon.



If you're equating science with reality, then the answer would logically be 'yes.' Science is at its core based on observation and necessary inference; pseudoscience on cherry-picked anecdotes, logical fallacies and dreams.

No

Perhaps because science is the study of natural laws, an acquaintance with the lawgiver would be desired.

Perhaps, because science involves the study of natural laws, one should consider learning of the creator.

I'm so sorry I bothered to post.

Sans evidence, what's the scientist's motivation to believe in the lawgiver/creator hypothesis in the first place?

my apologies my friend, I am being a little facetious today I shall pack it in.

Apology accepted albeit not understood.
Please don't be put off by our diversions

That was an if/then speculation.

To quote some of my students, "I am not understanding."

Proposition:
If there is a creator. . .

Gotcha. Sure. If it were known that one existed, I'd try to be at the front of the line.

Logic provides certainty only if the propositions are certain, a rare, perhaps impossible condition. Scientific effort provides degrees of certainty according to the difficulty of evaluating data. Mathematical effort provides certainty within each application. For example, in a plane, the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, on the surface of a sphere, it is a geodesic.

Yet, even without certainty, we send machines to explore the surface of Mars and peer into the complexities of the human genome. This is where Frank's thesis enters the twilight zone. Lacking a proper statement of axioms and a standard methodology, his demand for 'proof' is futile

This identifies the nuances of theological inquiry. Since the evidence is anecdotal and circumstantial,, not generally subject to quantification, great care must be exercised in the search of 'truth'. One's personal bias must be closely examined, among other things

So the beat goes on.

When I'm on my game, I avoid demanding proof. Instead, I ask for evidence. With regards to whether or not a complex hypothesis is true, one needs to accumulate evidence in as organized and careful a manner as possible, leading to inferential and tentative conclusions, which, as you know, is the way "real" science is done.

With regards to whether or not something exists, we need only one instance of positive observation, though, so they're not equivalent investigations in that respect. We only need to see one Sasquatch or Nessie or alien unambiguously in order to make the knowledge claim.

With regard to 'seeing' God:
We refer to him as a person, but in reality, he should more than likely be described as a 'force'. You would not see him, only his work.

As for some manifestation directed at you personally, you would have to experience it 'circumstantially' if that is the correct word. Thousands of years ago, he dealt directly with humans and we proved to be generally unmoved by his 'appearance', forgetting within a short time, as little as a few days, any vows made to serve him, whereas others proved faithful without such attention.

Today, we may read the accounts of such experiences and judge for ourselves what our reaction would have been. Under such a constraint, one would have to search vigorously to discover enough 'evidence' for belief. In my own personal case, the revelation that God's purpoae for man to live endlessly on earth provided sufficient motivation for such search. It took months; and I continue to evaluate my search even now, over 40 years later.

I don't expect to convince you with this short rant. I just wanted to show you how I got here.

That's cool. I do enjoy discussing this sort of thing with people who don't get all rabid about it, like Patches repeatedly telling me how I'm going to hell for eternity because I didn't believe those blobs of light were evidence for his god or angels or whatever.

But as for this creator/lawgiver being a force, physicists have detected the strong and weak nuclear forces, gravity and electromagnetism (ignoring the electroweak work for the time being), none of which demonstrate any sort of teleological agenda. How is it that they've missed a creator force?