'your ideas seem to belong more to "knock the revs" thread'
I'm not sure. I'm trying to draw a distinction between scientific inquiry and non-scientific inquiry. There entire method is completely different. A key factor is the ability to prove a theory wrong, if it is wrong.
It's utterly impossible to ever disprove the general existence of God with science. No matter what experiment you perform, you could always come back with, "Well, God chose not to do it that way." A thing that explains every conceivable outcome doesn't explain anything.
Because scientifically derived conclusions carry some weight in our society, we need to be very clear in how we distinguish science from non-science.
It has taken us thousands of years of recorded history and 10's of thousands of years of human activity to develop what we call science. The Method and Philosophy of science are among the most precious things we have. It is not something we should lightly permit to become conflated with other erroneous and error-prone kinds of "knowledge."
