Can Science see God or acknowledge the possibility of God?

@fmf said
Why don't you find out for yourself?

I'm not the one saying I want to know, that would be...….you.

@FMF

"Intelligent Design", for example, is pseudoscience. It is doing no one a disservice to say so.

Is archeology pseudoscience ?
They practice detection of intelligent causes in evaluating ancient artifacts, like rock formations, ruins, stones, sticks etcs.

Is fire insurance fraud detection pseudoscience ?
They practice detection of possible intelligent and deliberate causes to fires for insurance collection schemes.

How about criminology?
They practice detection of intelligently designed fowl play in the deaths of people.

Do you object to intelligent design detection in biology based on a religious reason that forbids such considerations?

I do not mean "religous" as relating to deity.
By "religious" I mean according to these definitions of the word found to Marriam Webster.

: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful
b : FERVENT, ZEALOUS

Are you scrupulously and conscientiously faithful to some belief that forbids the consideration of intelligent causes in biological systems? I mean such that you are a fervent zealot to protect such a belief in public forums.

@sonship said
@FMF

"Intelligent Design", for example, is pseudoscience. It is doing no one a disservice to say so.

Is archeology pseudoscience ?
They practice detection of intelligent causes in evaluating ancient artifacts, like rock formations, ruins, stones, sticks etcs.

Is fire insurance fraud detection pseudoscience ?
They practice detection of possible ...[text shortened]... gical systems? I mean such that you are a fervent zealot to protect such a belief in public forums.

People can believe in "Intelligent Design" if they want to. I think the notion/observation that our universe was created is the strongest evidence that theists have for the validity of their various religions: far stronger than their scriptures.

@fmf said
People can believe in "Intelligent Design" if they want to. I think the notion/observation that our universe was created is the strongest evidence that theists have for the validity of their various religions: far stronger than their scriptures.

Not sure how you suggest design is stronger evidence than scripture? Since all evidence is only strong or weak according how each sway the individual.

@kellyjay said
Not sure how you suggest design is stronger evidence than scripture? Since all evidence is only strong or weak according how each sway the individual.

Oh well, if you don't understand, then so be it.

@sonship said
Are you scrupulously and conscientiously faithful to some belief that forbids the consideration of intelligent causes in biological systems?

No, of course not. What a silly question. At no point over the last 10 years or so have you been forbidden from reading the content of my posts on this matter, so you have no excuse.

@fmf said
Oh well, if you don't understand, then so be it.

Not agreeing with you doesn’t mean a lack of understanding.

@kellyjay said
Not agreeing with you doesn’t mean a lack of understanding.

Your question and statement exhibited zero comprehension, feigned or otherwise. You make no secret of the fact that the notion that 'a created universe is tangible evidence for ALL religions with a creator god figure and not just yours' is like lemon juice in your partisan paper cuts.

@fmf said
Your question and statement exhibited zero comprehension, feigned or otherwise. You make no secret of the fact that the notion that 'a created universe is tangible evidence for ALL religions with a creator god figure and not just yours' is like lemon juice in your partisan paper cuts.

As I said not agreeing with you doesn’t mean a lack of understanding. The weight of evidence will vary due to the understanding of who looks at what. You reject God out of hand, I was a bit surprised that you acknowledged there was evidence for God weak or strong.

@kellyjay said
As I said not agreeing with you doesn’t mean a lack of understanding.

Well, the question and statement in your reply exhibited zero comprehension.

@kellyjay said
The weight of evidence will vary due to the understanding of who looks at what.

Yes, and the Pope is a Catholic and bears do it in the woods.

@kellyjay said
You reject God out of hand

No, I don't. You are lying because I must have told you ten times, maybe twenty times, in posts addressed directly to you, which you read, that I do not claim there is no god or gods.

@kellyjay said
I was a bit surprised that you acknowledged there was evidence for God weak or strong.

Why are you claiming you are "surprised". I said it to you a few days ago. I said it to you a few weeks ago. I have said it dozens and dozens of times on threads where you were contributing. I have said numerous times that, for me, the nature of the universe and human nature are two things that constitute the strongest evidence that believers in a creator being have.

KellyJay taking a leaf from Fethmyjunk's Playbook: don't read or don't acknowledge having read or don't admit you understand anything that has been said in a reply to one of your posts.

@kellyjay said
You reject God out of hand

I reject your claim ~ implicit in almost every single word you post in connection with your religion ~ that "God" has communicated his wishes or instructions or promises or threats to you and I have no reason to believe any of your assertions about everlasting life for humans, whether it be spent in "Heaven" or in "Hell". By the same reckoning, I am not a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu.