If science can't explain it then my answer is 'I don't know'.
Why? Why limit yourself to only science? Why create mental block and impose self limitations on yourself simple because "science" does not have the answer? This was the reason i made the list of tools. Should we not use those tools in the absence of scientific evidence and or conclusion? Let me ask you this, do you think we can reach an absolute truth in the absence of science? Personally, i think we do. And i am glad to provide an example once you have answered this, the reason being is, I do not want my answer to effect yours.
Quite often even when science can explain it, my answer is 'I don't know'.
Interesting, can you please give me a non-scientific example? The reason i tend to not like putting too much stock in "scientific examples" is because we know science and its findings change over time (as you have shown) which is why i do not use science beyond its own understandable limits thus, not understanding why some people take science as their "religion".
Certainly not that I hold science in especially high regard (it's a useful tool), and I don't think it holds much in the way of 'truth'. But it does provide a lot of utility.
This is why i say those trying to use science to prove/disprove God or a particular religion are using the wrong tool. Science, given its own limitations will never prove nor disprove either way however, science can be used to validate a certain holy book/text/scripture.
Science isn't a straight forward march to knowledge, that's for sure.
Once again i ask, then why say i don't know if science does not provide the answer? You seem intelligent enough to understand its limits, strengths and weaknesses yet, seem to willfully impose limits on yourself by not using the tools we all have (logic, rationale, common sense and being objective). Ben Shapiro (which is someone i do not like very much) once said something i really liked and agreed with he said "I don't need to be an expert in something to know when its bs" (or something very similar to that). For example, I don't need to be an human biologist to know human's can't shoot lasers from their eyes, so if the most renowned human biologist (or whoever) came to me and through the magic of PowerPoint put together the most awesome presentation and said "in conclusion, that's how we can shoot lasers (like superman) from our eyes". I don't need a PHD in anything to be say to him "that bs and you are crazy", why? Because based off everything we know about humans, whether its little or a lot, where you believe in evolution or not, Atheist or theist, we can use the tools we have (outside of science) and simply say "nah that's bs"
There are lots of things I can't prove scientifically that I believe.
Would you mind elaborating on this and providing an example or 2? As a Deist, we have this in common.
The thing is, as unsatisfying as 'not knowing' might be, it seems a simple truth to me that we will never know everything.
At what point in your life to do tell yourself, "I don't know is no longer enough until i have exercised every possible alternative"? And i say alternative because, most atheist and agnostics I know (even myself at one point) automatically and out rightly eliminated the possibility of a higher power/God. Now, i am not telling you to go research a religion or anything what i am saying is, by ONLY taking "God" and having him as a possible answer, does that change your conclusion? Forget what the book say, forget the rules of any religion, forget about all the good and bad you think that particular god has done and simply take God, all alone, and see what conclusion you reach. Of course, applying the tools to those thoughts as well. I really do not want to turn this into a discussion about God but, i think with an Agnostic Atheist and a Deist that topic was somewhat inevitable.
As mentioned, I like history. The amount of things we have 'known' or 'believed' over time we now know to be wrong is enormous. From this, it seems clear to me that there will always be a lot we don't know.
Completely and 100% agree however, in addition to that i believe there has to be some constant truths throughout time. As one of my criteria for judging the truth is that is to stand the "test of time". Whether we know its true at the point or not is irrelevant (insert round earth example). I personally, have seen many good things about religion and science and how they have come together to give us some great things. Look up Medieval Islamic Astrologers and Astronomers or even some recent Christian Biological Scientists. NOTE: I do not know how much some of the Christian scientist attribute their research to their faith but, i do not many of the Muslims ones do.
I am struggling a little to see why that promotes Deism in your mind over agnosticism, pantheism, panentheism or some other form of Creator race, polytheistic Gods, or similar.
Long answer coming lol sorry but you asked for it.
Instead of me keep saying "supreme being" or anything similar i will just say God, just to make it easier. This is not me saying i subscribe to a god or a religion but just for speech's sake.
Agnosticism: As i said before, i reached a point where i do not know was no longer true to me.
Pantheism: I do not know enough about the "divinity" to claim or believe that the universe is a manifestation of god.
Polytheistic Gods: After listening, watching and reading about every and all possible descriptions of God or Gods, and the arguments for and against other forms of multiple Gods or a 3 in 1 god (trinity) and anything else i have reached a conclusion. My conclusion is that by necessity you cannot have more than 1 "ultimate being" aka God because if you have more than 1 "ultimate" then, you have no "ultimate". Why? because for God to truly be God then he is the final and ultimate authority, you cannot have 2 gods as which god is the more powerful god? They can't be equal since they are different (one of my issues with Christianity), what does the other god do when one god wants it to rain and the other wants it sunny? Using the tools I mentioned, it makes the most sense that there will ultimately only be 1 God.
With all that said, i have chosen the Deist position. Now when i say i have chosen, I did not really choose it, I was taken their based off the evidence that was presented to me, I have done and continue to do my absolute best to follow whatever I find to be objectively true only AFTER i have considered every possible answer and those possibilities do include God. However, i do not use include God as the "God of the gaps" in the sense that, "oh science does not explain it therefore, GOD". No, similar to the Blood clotting example, Similar to how water knows to go up a tree or the tree knows to pull it up (fighting gravity), similar to how we can't explain the origin of life (sorry but, Abiogenesis does not do it, more on this later), similar to how we can't scientifically explain how a shepherd in the 6th century detailed embryology to the world (look up Quran on Embryology - Professor Keith L. Moore), similarly to how our body knows to take in exact portions of oxygen otherwise, it could be toxic for us. The list can go on and on but, I hope you understand where I am coming and see how i can logically, rational and objectively say all this can't be random or simply left up to "because evolution". Some of these processes depict "consciousness" or understand of what is going on, others present precision and accuracy against all odds, to me, simply "I don't know" no longer made sense and after exhausting every "Godless" option I decided to try and use God and all of a sudden not only did these things make sense but, so much more did as well because, for me, this was the most logical, rational and objective conclusion i could reach.
A little follow up on the Abiogensis comment i made. The definition is the original evolution of life or living organisms from inorganic or inanimate substances. Remember the Ben Shapiro quote i used? Yes, of course you do lol. Well, i apply that here because,
1)
Rationally speaking, you can't give someone something you do not have. An inorganic substances, which does not have life, cannot give life to anything. I have done my "research" on this topic ,I am by no means an expert, but from what I read and heard from the experts for and against it, sorry, but i am not buying this 1 bit.
2) I discussed how astronomically unlikely it is for our bodies to produce a single protein by chance let alone to do 24/7 without a problem. For argument sake, let's assume its pretty easy and the odds of this are in are our favor (even though they are not) since it already has other proteins to "copy" from (even though that not how it works).
Logically asking, how does, an inorganic substance, without consciousness, purpose or even understanding of life give life? Let me clarify and simplify, if you do not understand the basics of math, can you teach anyone math? if you do not speak Urdu, Spanish or mandarin how can you teach someone else to speak Urdu, Spanish or mandarin? This is why i liked that quote from Shapiro because even though i am not an evolutionary biologist or whatever abiogensis specialists are called, i can use my "tools" in the absence of science to know whether its bs or not.
3) And from a
common sense stand point, isn't it just common sense that you can't give off or even breed that which you do not even know of?
4)
Test of time: Do we have anything today that we know of and can observe and empirically test that is truly and 100% "inorganic or inanimate substances" that can give off life?
5) Putting all what you know and believe aside, and
being objective how can one logically and rationally think that an "inorganic or inanimate substances" give off life?
OK sorry about but 3 and 5 i was trying to find ways to creatively used the rest of my "tools" lol
OK i think i gave you enough of insight as to my train of thought and enough questions to answer.
Apologies in advance for any typos, I need to get some work done and don't have time to proof read the whole thing but, i am hope I made enough sense.