That was a quibble. How else can one speak to a religious fellow unless we find a common language. My point being, that if everything was Created by God, then the only true religion is science, because it explores the reality of things, be it the human mind, evolution, all the, "ologies". Science explores with exactitude all aspects of what religions claims to be Creation and when science proves something about a part of nature within this Creation, religion should be the first group to accept the findings with excitement and gratitude.
Whereas religion deals with myth, metaphor, speculation and abstraction as a means to support a punishment and reward scenario regarding the human spirit. The practical reality of religion is mostly overlooked, that being to engender, in-the-present, unity and non-judgemental love between humans and look how well they handled that one obligatory task.
And as far as the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are concerned, they have already determined that the universe was Created. This is not evidence that you or the majority of the scientific community will ever accept. Science most likely will never have access to empirical evidence that the world has a Causation, because the Cause can't be part of what it Caused. So if you rely on science alone to prove Creation, it will never happen. If you rely on some kind of personal experience, then this has no basis in reality, it is only human perception.
So no matter how one dresses up religion, or science, neither of them will ever prove Creation, the existence of God, or if humans have an eternal spirit.
An attempt to find a common language between science and religion is a very difficult challenge. Consider this:
Science is based on ideas that can be supported by rational reasoning and evidence. An important part of science is that ideas can be falsified. Ideas are often challenged and confirmed, modified, replaced or rejected. The focus is on the understanding of existence. Science admits when it doesn't know.
Religion is based on faith. The source of the faith is often, but not always, based on writings attributed to a supernatural entity. It is always based on some supernatural creator whose existence is also based on faith. Ideas are typically set with little room for advancing knowledge through challenges and many by there nature cannot be falsified. The idea of a supernatural creator is an example of this. The focus of religion is mostly pleasing the assumed supernatural creator. Religion doesn't admit that it doesn't know
You posted: And as far as the vast majority of humans who have ever lived are concerned, they have already determined that the universe was Created. This is not evidence that you or the majority of the scientific community will ever accept. That is the language of the religious. The assertion that the universe was created by an unknowable creator cannot be falsified and is based on faith. Fortunately, the majority have often shown to be wrong. On the issue of never accepting, I agree because this is not evidence.
Science most likely will never have access to empirical evidence that the world has a Causation, because the Cause can't be part of what it Caused. So if you rely on science alone to prove Creation, it will never happen. If you rely on some kind of personal experience, then this has no basis in reality, it is only human perception. That sounds right to me because your assertions are based on faith and not on evidence, and cannot be falsified. This is not science but religion.
