There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.
There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.
Gah.
Look, in the history of mankind, there has never been evidence of god, a theory of god, or anything related to god that is higher than an unbacked hypothesis.
Because of this, the current logical option is to say that we do not know god exists.
If the option is not chosen, you are making an argument from ignorance.
*edited to fix thingmajig*
Evidence or a theory of the nature of God is not necessary for a supernatural explanation to be possible. I am not talking about explaining the nature of God, or explaining how the supernatural works.
Evidence is also a vague term. Depending on the person, they can view any single thing as either perfect evidence or not evidence at all. While the Bible could be viewed as evidence, atheists often write it off for various reasons. Not every evidence is perfect, as proof has the same prerequisite as evidence, that something is only proof according to how willing a person is to accept it as proof.
Saying there is no evidence for a supernatural origin, or a creator, is arguing from a biased perspective. Like saying that a downed tree couldn't possibly be evidence of strong wind because
you believe that it is evidence of a lightning strike.
This isn't to say that evidence does not exist, but that the interpretation of evidence one way does not automatically reject the possibility for it to be interpreted another way.
Gah.
Look, in the history of mankind, there has never been evidence of god, a theory of god, or anything related to god that is higher than an unbacked hypothesis.
Because of this, the current logical option is to say god does not exist.
If the option is not chosen, you are making an argument from ignorance.
No, the best logical option is to say that we don't know if it exists, but the chances against it are high (due to the total lack of evidence of a god that interferes or interfered in the lives of its worshipers), and therefore there's no reason to act as if it exists.
If you are actually viewing the evidence that God interferes or interfered in the lives of its worshipers, yet you claim it is just 'coincidence' or 'nonsense' then of course you won't be able to see such evidence for what it is. It is circular logic to say "God doesn't exist, therefore he does not actively interfere or work in the lives of his followers. If God doesn't interfere or work in the lives of his followers, that must mean he doesn't exist."
There is an a priori assumption. Once again you seem to think that just because science can't define God or be used to determine anything about God, that it somehow means that therefore any theory involving God is unscientific, which is another claim entirely.
It is unscientific, by definition. It's your own fault that god is because of the way you define it. If you believe god created nature then he has to be outside it. Plus, if you posit god as having the ability to do anything, then you can't determine when god does or doesn't something using the scientific method. You have removed god from science, it's not science that has removed god from it, so please stop projecting a problem you have created for yourself.
There is a difference between understanding that through science we can't determine what or who God is, and believing that the assumptions of science therefore means that there is no possible chance that God could exist therefore every scientific theory must work in the realm that he does not exist.
Why are you ignoring what you're being told? Science does not do this. If science was a living entity, it would be agnostic and apathetic towards any god claims.
Please stop mistaking what I am saying. Just because science can't directly work with God doesn't mean that science can't come to a supernatural conclusion. I also don't see the logic behind stating that God didn't do something just because we can't prove or disprove what he did via the scientific method.
Once again, we do have knowledge of what God did via the Bible. We aren't going in completely blind. The Bible gives us the origin story. But we don't need to be able to apply the scientific method to God creating the universe out of nothing in order to be able to conclude that that is what happened.
Ignoring God and leaving him out of science is the same as stating he does not exist. If God did exist, then he would be the first cause, he would be the answer that scientists seek. So when science answers these questions with an answer that does not involve God, that means that these scientists are excluding God.
If science was a living entity, it might not be able to explain absolutely everything, but that doesn't mean it would automatically reject certain explanations. It wouldn't be agnostic or apathetic towards anything.
If science seeks the answer, then there shouldn't be any possibility that is by definition impossible for science to conclude. If God
does exist, then a science that can't arrive at a God conclusion is flawed. Just because science can't fully explain every single aspect of something, doesn't mean that it can't consider it to possibly exist.
Saying "Science is the only possible means to obtain a correct answer. Science can only arrive at natural conclusions, therefore a natural conclusion must be the correct answer." is a logical fallacy. It relies upon your own assumptions to be true. A science that can't arrive at any possible conclusion is a science limited by bias, whether it can fully
explain the conclusion or not.