Comment 26 by Aguazul

I never said I was describing science. I was describing gathering knowledge about aspects of nature >>that science (as currently defined) chooses to disregard. So there is the whole of nature, and then >>within that there is the part of nature that fits the requirements of science for analysis. Anything that >>doesn't fit the requirements cannot be understood with science as it stands.

I guess you mean that if you talk to god and we can't prove you don't, you are right, your god exists.

Can you explain then why there are over 9,000 religions and millions of gods with each religion believing their gods are the only real ones and that the other 8,999+ religions' gods don't exist.

Even religious people don't believe in most gods, only theirs. They cannot all be right (even you must accept that) and with my minimal scientific understanding it seems clear to me that they must all be wrong.

In fact I will have 9,000 plus religions and their total of 6 billion followers agreeing with me, except of course for their subset of gods.

Stop being silly. If ideas have any merits, Scientists will explore them. After several hundred years of wasting time on crap, they nowadays tend to focus on fruitful areas for their research, not crap (except maybe for those in the pay of Big Tobacco, Oil, Gas, Coal, Sugar, etc who are given the acceptable findings and search for some iota of "proof".

BTW, Christian Scientists and Intelligent Design experts are not scientists, they are at best, misguided.