You gather data and find the processes that work, the 'laws' that govern those processes. You leave 'who did it' completely out of the question, because that's not even addressable by science.
That's not true at all.
When a dead body is found for example, forensic scientists are usually rather capable of determining if it concerns a "natural" death, or a killing by another being.
So it seems to me that we certainly are capable of differentiating natural causes from actions by conscious agents.
Just as 'why is this volcano here instead of on a tectonic fault?" addressable by prayer.
This seems to imply that
anything at all is addressable by prayer.
I disagree.
And you are doing precisely what you claim I am doing (and I'm not). YOU have already decided that there is no God
This is not true at all.
You're the one who's starting with the assumption that a god did it.
And you are so dogmatic in that assumptions that
you don't even care how it actually happened. Because no matter what science comes up with: your god will still have done it.
I'm not making any assumptions at all. I'm more about look at a phenomenon and saying "
hmm, that's interesting. why does that happen? let's try and find out". And I'm not presupposing any answers at all.
During further research and study of the phenomenon, more data will pour in. That data will contain clues as to its explanation. If those clues include super-entities doing things, I'ld be more then happy to explore that.
But it's not what we find. What we seem to find, are natural causes. Every time.
Yes, it is true that science looks for natural causes to explain the things of reality. Mainly out of necessity, because how do you look for something supernatural?
Yes, science doesn't even know where to start to see if your god of choice had anything to do with anything. But why is that? I say it's the same reason for not knowing where to start to look for undetactable graviton pixies. Because it's ill defined, it makes no testable predictions, it is unsupported and to top it off, unfalsifiable.
And because of that, it doesn't matter. It has no value or meaning. It's useless.
, and therefore everything happens as 'a result of simple laws of nature...because those things aren't "done" by anybody...instead, they just happen. Without the need for any entities, gods or otherwise, to do anything at all."
Well, do you disagree?
For example....
Gravity holds planets together and plays a crucial role in their initial formation.
Is a "god" required to "fiddle" with the rumble of a newborn star to make planets form? Or does it rather just happen, because gravity?
How is that different from someone going after 'science' to prove that 'God did it?"
One is rational because it follows the evidence. The other is irrational because it assumes the answers before asking the questions, and doesn't care about having no evidence.
Because I don't see a difference. You are trying to prove that nobody did it.
Not at all.
I'm saying that there is no data to suggest or support the idea that somebody did anything at all.
Science doesn't not include gods into its models because it doesn't want to...
Instead, it doesn't include gods
because there is no reason to.
Only I'm not worried about proving that God did it
Obviously. Why else would you start with "god did it" as a (dogmatic) premise...
If you'ld actually care about being able to support / demonstrate your beliefs, you wouldn't start with the assumed answers before exploring the questions.
I already believe that He did...but that He DID 'do it' doesn't affect the natural laws or processes used.
If you say so.
I say the spirit of the undead extra-dimensional leprechaun that lives in my basement, did it. And the fact that he did do it, doesn't affect the natural laws or processes used.
Sorry 'bout the sarcasm if it offends you, but you know... it was too easy.