So are you saying that you do not believe in God because science has not detected God?
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.
Ethics is a human constructs only without God. There is no real good or evil without a God to inform us of such.
I disagree. There are rules of conduct that lead to better interactions and better societies. Those rule are the ethical rules. No God needed.
Aesthetics is always going to be a human construct and sometimes based on the ethics we accept.
And ethics is a human construct as well. That doesn't mean either is unimportant or unreal.
Science can only establish what is and how it works if that thing is testable by science. (But you do accept the existence of aesthetics and ethics it seems even though science cannot absolutely detect them)
Science cannot say how things came about.
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.
The only thing you have established is that YOU do not accept the existence of God because science does not say God exists.
That is not the only reason. But the lack of detectability is a good reason to not believe.
This puts you in the descriptive orb of scientism imo because you have ascribed to science what is beyond the realm of science to determine. This would also be true not only about attributing to science the ability to say if God exists or not about also saying that science can determine how things came to be.
I would disagree. Science has the ability to detect, test, and determine the origin of anything that actually exists.
Scientism would be a word coined to describe what is called the new atheists and so would be meant to cover atheism and reasons to say that God does not exist.
I think part of the problem is that we have different definitions of scientism. IMO it is ascribing to science things that science cannot do, God's existence being one of those things.
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.