God as defined using science.

[cladking]

Do you agree that gravity works very consistently? (It's unclear what you are meaning to convey, or whether you might or might not agree that gravity works very consistently.)

It certainly seems to be very consistent but then we've not observed it for long and we wouldn't know if there were small oscillations in its nature. We also don't know what causes it so we don't know it will continue to seem to be consistent. There are anomalies in things like the earth's orbit that are not understood. Some of these anomalies might be responsible for ice ages or global warming or dependent on the same causations. There is no evidence that reality obeys laws and it's hardly logical to presuppose it does as scientists to date have. How does a system of codependent matter and energy "obey" anything. It smacks of the divine to suggest it does. We've merely substituted "nature" and "laws" for "God's will". We simply can't admit we don't know so we all have a long litany of hollow and baseless "answers" each determined by our assumptions.

I refuse to take sides but will say at least "religion" is based on real science; natural science. This doesn't mean I support anything other than Knowledge > Understanding > Creation. We can't get back to "the Garden" until we can estimate our own ignorance and I estimate it as virtually complete.

What if a new physics theory was formulated that predicted an entirely new thing no one expected or had seen?

Would that seem meaningful?

It's meaningless drivel until it is shown experimentally.

More accurately no matter how ingenious an hypothesis it simply means nothing until it has been shown experimentally.

Back in 1915-1919 time frame, Einstein's radical new theory of General Relativity predicted that gravity would bend starlight in a way no one had seen, and didn't expect.

Obviously there is something to general relativity but that doesn't mean current models are correct or that we understand what gravity is and how it works. Even if someone had a completely accurate model we wouldn't know because each model is different. The guy with the best model is merely more likely to devise a "good hypothesis" and relevant experiment. Physics is apparently stuck in the 1920's so maybe nobody has a good model of what's already known. It is my contention this impasse is caused by the way we think and we must change it in order to get by this hump.

 

[halbhh]

It certainly seems to be very consistent but then we've not observed it for long and we wouldn't know if there were small oscillations in its nature. We also don't know what causes it so we don't know it will continue to seem to be consistent. There are anomalies in things like the earth's orbit that are not understood

If I could point to something few even with a hard science degree would have learned about -- that various engineers/theorists have actually accounted for interesting cyclic and secular variations in Earth's orbit, and it's, well, gravity at work -- can be shown by calculation/simulation, confirming the ideas.

But the n-body problem cannot be solved (or not yet, but likely not ever), but only calculated to some limit of technical ability to calculate.

That is, to say precisely where Earth would be, we can only calculate to a limited time horizon (such as not even being able to be perfectly exact I think even up to near a Lyapunov time scale) -- with high precision -- because of our computational inability to date to calculate such vast number crunching that would be needed to look precisely enough millions of years into the future. We can get a rough idea of things that might happen though.

The theory works great. We just can't calculate such vast amounts of calculation.

But we can figure out and observe evidence of periodic effects on the other hand:

Milankovitch (Orbital) Cycles and Their Role in Earth's Climate – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

It's meaningless drivel until it is shown experimentally.

heh, well that's my basic starting point view. Could you notice? If you read my post carefully? (my degree is in Engineering Physics, and I have all of what one would learn with a undergraduate physics degree in which they learned everything competently, and continued to read in astronomy/astrophysics since.)

Physics is apparently stuck in the 1920's

Just a fyi for you, this idea is entirely wrong altogether. A lot of stuff has been figured out in physics since the 1920s. Really a huge amount.
Here's a readable site if you have a college degree or are well read, and willing to learn, and you could catch up some with learning what we know and don't know as of now:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/physics/
While you'd read here a lot of the current speculative new theorizing, you can also learn background things that are well known now along the way, because the quality of the writing is fairly good.