Let just say there is an actual Creator. Who do you think will find it first, science or religion?

Jeremiah: If there was an actual creator and it was supernatural, then science will never discover it, which is why real science makes no statements regarding the supernatural, except to state science does not address them. There could be one supernatural being or trillions of them, and science will never, ever, detect them, if they actually existed.

How about addressing my actual question?

And learn how to use the quote and/or mention feature, which is standard practice at these forums.

There may be someone capable of proving existence of God but chooses not to for reason(s) unknown to me.

not 100% sure what you mean by "religion" in this - but interpreting it broadly - I think most "religions" would say they have already found the Creator.

Saying and doing are two very different things. I can say that I have flown to the moon and swam to the bottom of the ocean, but just saying those things does not make them true.

Jeremiah: What is your question? All I've seen from you is childish nonsense. I did see you ask a foolish question about what would discover God first, science or religion, which I answered. Science could never discover the existence of some supernatural being, so to the extent someone claims God is a supernatural being, science cannot discover the existence of such a being before religion, because, as a matter of course, science refrains from all supernatural claims. It's simply not a topic for science. If you would actual pick up a physics textbook, work through the problem sets, then you'll realize that science has doodly squat to do with the God issue, which is why I have stated Hawking's opinion on whether God exists carries no more weight than some drunken idiot's opinion on the topic.

Science could never discover the existence of some supernatural being, so to the extent someone claims God is a supernatural being, science cannot discover the existence of such a being before religion, because, as a matter of course, science refrains from all supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

Yes you are right that science does not make claims about the supernatural. Because once the have been investigated they turn out to be perfectly, predictably natural happenings.
But there is no rule against them investigating anything they feel is worthy of investigation, and believe that science has investigated some really weird things.

Dogs bark a lot at night.
Science discovered that dogs can hear things that other animals and people cannot hear, like another dog barking a mile, away and bark because of that.
The religious people blamed demons and evil spirits for making their dogs bark at night.

One or the other is right I suppose.
Or is it possible that there are demons that dogs can hear and they make them bark at night and scientist have just not gotten around to investigating all of the possibilities and proving that demons and evil spirits do exist?

Did you check out the link I posted? Here it is again in case you missed it.

https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2014/02/there-is-a-paranormal-activity-lab-at-the-university-of-virginia/283584/

I don't recall asking about a supernatural being. Let's take a look. . .

Let just say there is an actual Creator. Who do you think will find it first, science or religion? — Jeremiah

Do you see the word supernatural or even god in there? As I don't.

And you really think that you'll be able to handle advanced mathematics? You do know that you will need a very high attention to detail for that type of education, right?

Jeremiah: There you go again with your childishness. No where in your question did you rule out God being a supernatural being, and for many billions of people, that is precisely how they view God. So, it is you who has demonstrated yet again that you cannot even grasp the most basic logical thinking. Yes, I am positive I know more about logic, math, and science than you. In fact, I am 100% positive that you are at the remedial level when it comes to such subjects.

Justr give it up already. There is no science textbook at any major western university that supports your bullshit claims. Not one. They all support my position. The only time students discuss the existence of God issue on college campuses is in the philosophy classroom, or the literature classroom, or the theology classroom, not in the physics classroom. If you would actually read an actual science textbook and go through the problem sets, you'd realize, very quickly, how absurd your position is. But, instead, you get your science "education" from ideologues, which is never good for anyone.

Sir2U: You claimed, "Yes you are right that science does not make claims about the supernatural. Because once the have been investigated they turn out to be perfectly, predictably natural happenings." That is absolutely FALSE. Science does not even waste time investigating supernatural claims. If someone tells you that there is an angel in the room, a scientist is not going to do something like shine a flashlight in the room to see if an angel shows up, because the concept of an angel is that it is a non-material, supernatural being, and science, as a matter of course, as a matter of definition, only examines things that are material.

Let's try reading this again . . . .

Let just say there is an actual Creator. Who do you think will find it first, science or religion? — Jeremiah

You are also completely wrong about my level of mathematics. Last night I wrote out a proof showing $\sigma^2=\frac{\alpha\beta}{(\alpha+\beta)^2(\alpha+\beta+1)}$ for the beta distribution. Think you could do the same?

Flashing your degree is not going to work on this site. Many people here are well educated.

In my typoholic opinion, no one can provide an answer one way or another regarding the possible existence of something like a god.

However, a good philosopher should be able to demolish the God debate, which in my view is a step in the right direction. If the question of God's existence can be shown to be fatally flawed, then there's not much point in arguing over competing answers, and all this energy can be redirected towards more promising investigations.

==========

We can observe that pretty much everyone on all sides of the issue seems to assume without questioning that things can only exist, or not exist, one or the other. But if we make an observation of reality as our scientist friends would wisely advise us to do, we discover the following.

1) The overwhelming majority of reality from the smallest to largest scales is space.

2) The existence status of space is very unclear. Space doesn't fit neatly in to either our definitions of existence or non-existence. One could make a reasonable claim in either direction.

3) If the vast majority of observable reality can not be firmly said to either exist or not exist, one or the other, then why do we assume that something the scale of gods would be limited to existence or non-existence?

==========

The concept of existence seems to assume that there are separate things which exist independently of other things. And so we ask, does this thing or that thing exist, is it a phenomena separate from other phenomena?

Do YOU exist as a separate thing? Here's a simple quick experiment to find out. Hold your breath for one minute.

==========

Existence and things may not be a property of reality, but rather products of thought, the device observing reality.

As example, if you're wearing tinted sunglasses all of reality appears to be tinted. The tint is not a property of what you're observing, but rather a property of the tool being used to make the observation.

That is absolutely FALSE. Science does not even waste time investigating supernatural claims. — LD Saunders

I never said it did, I said that science can and does investigate anything that there is a possible scientific explanation for.

If someone tells you that there is an angel in the room, a scientist is not going to do something like shine a flashlight in the room to see if an angel shows up, because the concept of an angel is that it is a non-material, supernatural being, and science, as a matter of course, as a matter of definition, only examines things that are material. — LD Saunders

Unexplained technology is the equivalent of magic. Unexplained happens are the equivalent of supernatural. All that is needed is an explanation, which is the job of the scientists.

If someone had said to the non scientific minded people of the Enlightenment that horseless changes and metal birds would one day move people around the earth they would have been burnt at the stake. The scientific minded would have said that it is possible that one day it will happen.

If enough people told a scientist that they had seen a ghost, he would not run out to find evidence of ghosts but would would investigate the cause of the peoples statements. Did the people actually see something? Was it a case of mass obfuscation of natural happenings?
Scientist are interested in finding an explanation for things that happen and whether you like the idea or not scientist do study the supernatural for the purpose of making it natural.

Science still does not have any idea about how much they DO NOT know about this world let alone the universe. So do not expect to see everything about the universe in the college text books you keep mentioning.

So I now ask you to answer a question, how do you know that there is not a material god in the universe?
If you can answer this question and learn to use the quote function then we might be able to continue discussing some aspects of this topic. If not, sorry but I have no time for closed mind people that think they know everything just because they went to college. I also have been there and done that.

Sir2u: I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. Carry on with your misconception of science. Just realize that people who actually know science do not agree with you. Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here.

Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here. — LD Saunders

That is a statement that you cannot prove.

Jeremiah: What I stated is a fact. You are as ignorant of science and boring as Sir2u, so I'm also done responding to you. You literally can't grasp what is taught to students in a basic introductory science course within the first two weeks. That's how ignorant of science you are. Carry on with your childishness with someone else who actually cares what you think. I for one couldn't care less what you have to state on this topic.

What I stated is a fact. — LD Saunders

You clearly have no clue what a fact is, at any rate please provide the empirical evidence and PROVE IT.

I don't intend to wade too far into this swamp, but I will just say that, while science generally adheres to methodological naturalism, that stance does not imply that all scientists (or the practice of science generally) exemplify ontological naturalism.

At least some supernatural claims can be, and have been, investigated scientifically. For instance, the Society for Psychical Research carried out scientific examinations of purportedly psychical phenomena, psychiatrist Ian Stevenson investigated reports of "past lives," studies have been done on the medical efficacy of intercessory prayer, tests for out-of-body experiences have been performed in operating rooms, and so forth.

I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. — LD Saunders

They also tend to learn what a basic fact is, maybe you should take some of those classes.

I'm done trying to explain what essentially every beginning science student learns within the first two weeks of class. Carry on with your misconception of science. Just realize that people who actually know science do not agree with you. — LD Saunders

Yeah, OK, whatever. I have had enough of trying to clear you highly bigoted, extremely narrow minded and under educated view of the world. You go ahead and believe whatever you want. Just realize this, that whatever is in those classes and textbooks is the result of science having done its job already. The job of science is to explain the world we live in, and the rest of the universe. Science is the method used to find out how and why events happen. And whether you want to believe it or not there are scientist that have tried to discover what ghosts really are. There are scientists that investigate UFOs. There are scientist that have studied life after death and previous lives of people. There are scientist that study the possibility of multiple universe that just like ghosts have no way to be detected, YET.

What is in every book that you keep talking about is history, things that have be proven to be true(in most cases at least). What is not in those books is the research that they are doing to find knew information that might appear in next year's edition. Fifty years ago high school kids did not study genetics, they did not learn how people went to the moon and a whole bunch of other stuff that is a part of today's curriculum.
A hundred years ago most scientists would have laughed if you had told them that an atom is not the smallest particle. And many would have had you locked up if you had told them that there are ways to cure certain types of insanity.

Books are about history, things that have already happened. They are written after the scientist have discovered a method to investigate things. Have you read in any of these books that you have read so many of about the eleventh planet in the solar system, of course not because even even though the scientist are sort of sure it is there they cannot prove it.

Have you ever read about a pill that that with one dose can cure several sexually transmitted diseases? NO, but that is a fact. Why is it not in one of these books?

Not a single science department at any major western university would agree with your claims you've stated here. — LD Saunders

Pathetic. Are you really trying to make people believe that you have checked every one of the major universities? Did you try looking at some of the small ones? You have made this statement so many times now it appears that it is the only thing you know how to say. I even started to think that someone had set up a bot for a while, but they are usually better at arguing their point of view.

I even gave you a link to one that does study things that some would call supernatural. There are several others that, if you would open your mind, you can find quite easily on the internet.

And if you want to have people take you seriously then learn to use the QUOTE function so that they know you have written to them. Not everyone bothers to go and look for replies.

Yet, for some reason, people seem to be concerned with what scientists think about the existence of God. — LD Saunders

It doesn't' matter if the person is a scientist or a 6th grade dropout, what matters is how one justifies their belief. We want to hear the evidence or the reasons that support the conclusion one way or the other.

The problem I have with many scientists is that they believe that the scientific method is the only way to justify a belief. As if experimentation is the only method that could possibly answer the question. There are many ways of justifying a belief, some are weak and some are strong. Most of the knowledge we have is gained by other means.

@LD Saunders I am still waiting for you to prove your "fact".

That is how things work in science, and maybe if you took some classes in a science then you would know that.