Science - by which I mean actual science, and not just any random thought that comes into a person's head - is an area of inquiry in its own right. It has a method, it has philosophy. It has a realm of application.

Science does not *do* god. It does not *do* supernatural. Any attempt to apply science to problems of religion is using a screwdriver to hammer a nail. It's the wrong tool.

In particular, scientists try to explain the basic scientific entities and its fundamental axioms in the clearest, least ambiguous terms possible. And when they apply their reasoning, they try to be very careful when they are talking about logical necessity and when they are talking about reasonable conclusions and when they are just stating their personal opinions. They don't conflate 20 different ideas and say, "there, i've proved it. next topic." A perfect example is when you were talking about God being everything and I asked does that include feces and you came back with the metaphor of the donut. Look, science doesn't give a rat's rear whether something is desirable. We're trying to figure out the IS, not the OUGHT or the I-wished -it-WERE.

This is not to say that philosophy and science cannot work together, but only that they are distinct. Conflating philosophy
and science is bad science. Using science to lend credibility to purely philosophical points is bad science.

The subject of God is one example. Another is that there is no scientific reason whatever to believe that "a supernatural spirit" exists. None. And even if it did exist, it's not something science can address. The very instant a person brings that subject into the conversation, we know that they are misapplying science.