If God is defined as a supernatural being, who cannot be detected directly or indirectly by our natural senses, then the idea is "empirically baseless", and so science cannot have anything to say about it.sduncan1829 wrote:This is a question no one can definitively for you as it's primarily a subjective matter. . .or at least it will be until science decides to seriously investigate it instead of dismissing the idea out of hand as empirically baseless.
This sounds like a load of politically correct B.S. to me. I think you are making a categorical error. Before you bemoaned that science has not, as of yet, researched the question seriously. But that would assume that science could theoretically reach a conclusion. That would make other conclusions wrong! Either there is one God, or there is not. Either God wants us to follow Sharia law, or he does not. Etc. These are statements of fact. They are either right or wrong. Even if the statements are not in principle answerable by us, that does mean that they are "neither and both" right and wrong "all at the same time". At least, not if you believe in logic. Even the positivist theory that such statements are meaningless (which I disagree with) makes more sense.sduncan1829 wrote: As for who's right and who's wrong - neither and both all at the same time. Right and wrong are terms that are improperly applied to such things. All we can really say is that there are some things we agree with and others we don't, because in the end, no one can put forward incontrovertible proof one way or the other.
If you were talking about values, as opposed to facts, I might agree with you. That's why I say I think you're making a categorical error.