Creation, Evolution, and faith

So you are saying that meteorology incorporates divine attributes because it describes thunder using natural mechanisms that were once ascribed to Thor? That doesn't make any sense.If the facts show that the universe is self existing then it is self existing. The problem here seems to be that theists incorrectly inserted their god into gaps in our knowledge. It is not the fault of science that those gaps are filled with knowledge instead of blind faith.

Is there any scientific test that you would accept as a valid test of whether or not God is real?Just on the face of it, I see no reason why science could not test for God other than not wanting to falsify the existence of God. The supernatural is nothing more than an invented realm that, conveniently, is said to be impenetrable to science. By making the existence of God unfalsifiable you have done nothing more than demonstrate your dogmatism and lack of reason or logic.

Why not? So the only god that can exist is one that is indistinguishable from a god that doesn't exist? My point is that without some sort of risky prediction of what we should and should not see in reality then how can one arrive at a belief except through blind faith?I will freely admit that there may be more to reality than what we have discovered. That is the hope of every scientist, atheist and theist alike. What I want to know is how one goes from saying "there could be something else" to "there is something else"? How does one go from "there could be a god" to "there is a god" without reference to anything resembling reason and logic?

What line of reasoning and logic lead to the conclusion that God is inherently supernatural? What line of reasoning and logic lead to the conclusion that there is a supernatural realm? No more than I can propose a scientific test for Leprechauns and Santa Claus, and for the same reason. What's the difference? So what is that reasoning and logic?

Yes, I do think it is insignificant. The only thing put forward thus far for God existing is faith that God exists. That's it. It doesn't matter if you put "by science" in that sentence or not. I am operating from the position that the natural is all that can be shown to exist. If you can demonstrate the existence of the supernatural I would be all ears.

This is much like the mistake you are making when you claim that science invokes divine causes. It is not the fault of science that people yearn for a purpose that just isn't there, or at least can not be demonstrated. It is not the job of science to be subservient to our biases. In fact, it is the job of science to do away with these biases to the best of our abilities.Once again, the difference between science and religion are glaring. Religious faith is a collection of beliefs that we hope are true without reference to reason or logic. The faith we have in science is based on what we know is true (not True with a capital T, but true as in shown to be a fact) based on reason and logic.

I have often seen "intersubjective" used in these cases. Intersubjective is equivalent to objective with the added assumption that we can trust our perception of a rational reality.