Featured Let's go over this again, shall we, about chances--

No. What I am saying is that there is no good reason to believe in a God because there is no way to detect one. Science is simply the way to go about detecting something.

I disagree. There are rules of conduct that lead to better interactions and better societies. Those rule are the ethical rules. No God needed.

And ethics is a human construct as well. That doesn't mean either is unimportant or unreal.

Both are false statements. To be testable by science is precisely the same as simply being testable. Science can, and does , detect the behaviors of humans and what they consider to be ethical and aesthetics.

And, science has no problem figuring out things like how stars come about. Or planets. or various chemicals, etc.

That is not the only reason. But the lack of detectability is a good reason to not believe.

I would disagree. Science has the ability to detect, test, and determine the origin of anything that actually exists.

And I disagree that it is not a scientific question. If God is detectable and testable, it can be found by science. If it cannot be detected or tested, there is no reason to believe it exists at all.

 

Because it is testable and repeatable. That's the same way we can know that anything is true.

Once again, it is NOT a presupposition. It is a conclusion based on the same principles I use to determine whether or not anything else exists.

No miracle has ever been observed and tested. Natural science could hypothesize a deity. It just has no need to.

And I disagree. Science is tasked with observation and testing. It has no limitations on what it can hypothesize and only limited in observation and testing by our abilities to detect and test.

And those experiences are investigated. We can even induce OBE artificially. We know that NDE are similar to what is experienced with ketamine, and that a ketamine analog is active during circulatory collapse.

The problem is that the results of the investigations doesn't agree with your beliefs.

 

Show that there is a spirit in a bacterium. Or even, for that matter, a human.

Life *is* a collection of chemical processes. No spirits needed. That is demonstrated by biochemistry, which explains *all* of the basic properties of life with chemistry.

And why is it that science cannot determine the existence of a spirit? What prevents getting actual observational evidence of such things?

ALL matter holds information. Simply being an oxygen atom as opposed to a nitrogen atom is information. The information is in the different properties of the atoms, from size, to ability to bind, to charges, etc. That *is* information.

If the explanation can be done without anything 'outside', then nothing outside is required to explain it.

Nothing outside is required to explain the properties of living things.

And exactly how does postulating a deity help to explain what happened? How does it help to describe the *mechanism* of how life got started?



Yes I know that science cannot attribute anything to God even when no other reasonable answer is there. Speculate until what is hypothesized sounds reasonable enough and justify a faith in naturalism.

And, then, how is it possible to know about it? What, other than observation, hypothesizing, and testing, can be used to determine the properties of spirits and deities?

 

So you allow for a fairly large amount of evolution. Now, how closely are humans related to, say, bonobos as compared to how closely different bats are related?