Method for accepting science

[Michael]

I didn't say my method was the scientific method.

As best as I can tell, your 'method' seems to be "Automatically have doubt in all forms of "religion", but automatically "have complete faith" in anything sold as a form of "science".

I can try to, to the best of my ability and time, but I think people are fooling themselves to think that they can go through all the evidence and understand all the data, equations, etc, etc. Generally people have to take the word of others that know better than them on many things because we simply don't have time in life.

So why are you "agnostic" to all concepts of "God", yet have so much "blind faith" in anything called 'science'? Surely you've seen a "drug recall" by now.

Maybe it is faith in science, depending how you define it. I'm not scared of the word faith. I'm sure faith can be when put to reasonable use. I can try to understand how this or that theory makes sense and how they get there from the evidence, but normally means I have to work from some assumptions still because I don't have full knowledge of the subject.

So any "theist" that simply "trusted Jesus" on the topic of God would pretty much be doing exactly the same thing, no?

I can try to give the evidence as I understand it for this or that theory, but I would think a large difference between beliefs of people comes from who they trust. It is important to ask who it is reasonable to trust, to what extent and why.

FYI, it would likely be a complete waste of your time to actually try to defend mainstream cosmology theory to me personally. I've debated professional astronomers, on many websites in cyberspace on these topics for the past 7 years, and I am far more skeptical now of mainstream theory than I was when I started. I actually prefer Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe theory for a wide variety of empirical reasons

Well I guess it could be either. I don't go round saying I know what dark energy is, but while dark energy seems to be the best (while completely still lacking) understanding of the problem I am happy to say it might exist. Do you not think my skepticism reflects that of scientists on the issue? No one knows what it is, but much weirder things seem to be true of the world.

I guess I'm just mostly perplexed on why you don't apply that same logic toward the topic of God. If all that matters is "human consensus" and you're not really prepared to take the time to review every topic under the sun, why not apply the same rule of thumb to ALL topics, including God?

 

[Jazer]

So where is all this new-found knowledge and divine thoughts? If all one has to do to get "all the answers" is have a relationship with god, why then don't all the ones claiming this very relationship have all the answers?

This is really very simple. In fact everything is designed so a child can understand. God created the Universe and God has everything under control. There is nothing that can ever happen to you in your life that God does not have under His control. We do have free will, so you can make a mess out of things by living in rebellion against God to refuse to follow His plan for you and your life. God's rock solid promise to you is that all things work out for the best for those who love God and follow His plan and purpose for them and their lives. IF you reject God then it is a sure thing that your life is going to go from bad to worse. This is His rock solid promise for you. Paraphrased of course. I can get you the exact scriptures if you want.

Can science make you the same promise that God can???
NO science can NOT do for you what God can do for you.

 

[Nabobalis]

Why not let it simply die a natural scientific death the way you'd do for a 'religious' belief that consistently failed such observational tests?

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

How can one actually "falsify" mainstream "scientific" theory when the mainstream simply IGNORES the data that they don't like?

That is dark matter, not dark energy. The two are separate. That result is interesting and I'm sure that astronomers are going to redo the measurement and some will create new models. But it takes time, science is not instant.

 

[Theofane]

Is accepting science the same as accepting atheism?

Are science and atheism the same thing?

 

[Michael]

Is accepting science the same as accepting atheism?

Are science and atheism the same thing?

They are definitely not the same thing. I'm a HUGE fan of "most" (really all but one) branches of "science", and I am also a "Christian". I have no difficulty resolving my faith with science, and my 'beef' over astronomy is really an empirical bias which causes me to favor plasma cosmology theory over "dark" invisible sky stuff.

 

[Nabobalis]

Why not let it simply die a natural scientific death the way you'd do for a 'religious' belief that consistently failed such observational tests?

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

How can one actually "falsify" mainstream "scientific" theory when the mainstream simply IGNORES the data that they don't like?

Also, if it was a religious belief. That evidence would never come to light, religions don't correct themselves. Science does.

 

[Michael]

That is dark matter, not dark energy. The two are separate.

Yes, I know. If I was confusing in my mixing and matching of terms related to falsifying mainstream theory, my apologies.

That result is interesting and I'm sure that astronomers are going to redo the measurement and some will create new models. But it takes time, science is not instant.

I'm always fascinated how atheists can simply overlook a direct falsification of mainstream theory, and give them the benefit of the doubt, yet put so little faith in "experts" like Jesus, on his topic of expertize.

 

[Split Rock]

But you didn't really describe a "scientific method". You aren't suggesting it's worth your personal time to "skeptically review" anything with the label "science" attached to it. Your position amounts to "faith in science" unless you take the time to understand the specific topic, and/or make your own decisions.

What "scientific method" demonstrates that "dark energy" exists and it's not just a "gap filler" in an otherwise falsified cosmology theory? Inflation?

Why is it that you always, Always, ALWAYS make EVERY thread topic you participate in into a diatribe against dark matter/ energy ???????

 

[Nabobalis]

I'm always fascinated how atheists can simply overlook a direct falsification of mainstream theory, and give them the benefit of the doubt, yet put so little faith in "experts" like Jesus, on his topic of expertize.

No one said it wasn't a direct falsification. However, the measurement needs to be repeated first of all. Then once verified, theorists will come up with new models. Then either evidence for or against will emerge and then the cycle continues. Science works like this. It isn't glamorous, nor fast but it will self correct.

Not sure what Jesus was an expert on.

 

[Nabobalis]

Is accepting science the same as accepting atheism?

Are science and atheism the same thing?

No, just no. Otherwise you'd be an atheist.

 

[Michael]

Also, if it was a religious belief. That evidence would never come to light, religions don't correct themselves. Science does.

The internet makes it impossible for any issue not to "come to light". Some religions do in fact 'correct themselves', or people correct it for them by selecting one they prefer.

I don't personally even subscribe to every piece of religious 'dogma' that is put forth in the church that I attend occasionally.

I would in fact argue that religions can change for the better or the worse, IMO more for the worse than for the better over the past 2000 years actually. For instance, Judaism has no concept of 'eternal torment', and Jesus spoke to a JEWISH audience as the JEWISH Messiah, when using terms like "gehenna" and "sheol". Neither of those terms he used then, has anything to do with modern day concepts (actually pagan concepts) of "hell".

The nice thing about the internet is that it allows for anyone to research any topic. I learned a lot about early "Christianity" when I read the writings of Origin. Just as some changes in 'science' aren't necessarily for the better (inflation IMO), so too 'religions' can change, not always for the better.

 

[selfinflikted]

This is really very simple. In fact everything is designed so a child can understand. God created the Universe and God has everything under control. There is nothing that can ever happen to you in your life that God does not have under His control. We do have free will, so you can make a mess out of things by living in rebellion against God to refuse to follow His plan for you and your life. God's rock solid promise to you is that all things work out for the best for those who love God and follow His plan and purpose for them and their lives. IF you reject God then it is a sure thing that your life is going to go from bad to worse. This is His rock solid promise for you. Paraphrased of course. I can get you the exact scriptures if you want.

Can science make you the same promise that God can???
NO science can NOT do for you what God can do for you.

Cool story, bro.

This, in no way, answers the question I asked.

 

[Michael]

No one said it wasn't a direct falsification.

Gee, I don't see astronomers clamoring all over themselves to reject mainstream theory.

However, the measurement needs to be repeated first of all. Then once verified, theorists will come up with new models.

The last time they did that they kludged their "religion" with more unseen sky entities (70 percent dark energy) and empirical physics ended up representing only 4% of the actual theory. I'm not impressed with their track record of "accepting falsification" of BB theory. It's the ultimate creation mythos for theists and "scientists" alike IMO.

Then either evidence for or against will emerge and then the cycle continues. Science works like this. It isn't glamorous, nor fast but it will self correct.

The last time this kind of crisis took place in mainstream theory, it affected their interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Rather than throwing out their interpretation of redshift as being directly related to expansion, they threw in acceleration too, and then chalked it up to a brand new metaphysical friend that they simply added to their dogma.

Not sure what Jesus was an expert on.

He's the world's leading recognized authority on the topic of God. Between Christianity and Islam, his teachings are revered by more than 1/2 of the planet.

 

[Nabobalis]

Gee, I don't see astronomers clamoring all over themselves to reject mainstream theory.

Again, the result needs to be verified. Physicist's didn't clamor all over themselves when CERN found faster than light neutrinos either.

The last time they did that they kludged their "religion" with more unseen sky entities (70 percent dark energy) and empirical physics ended up representing only 4% of the actual theory. I'm not impressed with their track record of "accepting falsification" of BB theory. It's the ultimate creation mythos for theists and "scientists" alike IMO.

The percentage of dark things came from the models when compared with observations. The models might be wrong, no one will deny that, but right now they are all we have. A new better model will emerge, but no one will know when.

The last time this kind of crisis took place in mainstream theory, it affected their interpretation of the redshift phenomenon. Rather than throwing out their interpretation of redshift as being directly related to expansion, they threw in acceleration too, and then chalked it up to a brand new metaphysical friend that they simply added to their dogma.

Redshift is related to expansion. Tired light doesn't work.

He's the world's leading recognized authority on the topic of God. Between Christianity and Islam, his teachings are revered by more than 1/2 of the planet.

However, in Islam not all of his teaching are revered. Also, when did having 1/2 of the world believing in someone make that person an expert?

 

[Michael]

Again, the result needs to be verified. Physicist's didn't clamor all over themselves when CERN found faster than light neutrinos either.

Actually the complaints and ideas about the CERN results started almost instantly. So far I haven't heard a peep out of the mainstream on ANY of the last four observations that falsified mainstream ideas about mass estimation techniques that have occurred over the past 4 years. Unlike particle physicists, astronomers pretty much outright ignore the falsifications of their theory in my experience.

The percentage of dark things came from the models when compared with observations.

The models are just hopelessly flawed.

The models might be wrong, no one will deny that, but right now they are all we have. A new better model will emerge, but no one will know when.

But that's the problem. The data all demonstrates (there have been one a year for four years running) that the mainstream STINKS when it comes to estimating the amount of mass in a galaxy. PERIOD. There have been NO changes to their models during the past four years, and I suspect they won't change much in their models as a result of this falsification either.

Redshift is related to expansion. Tired light doesn't work.

Exactly what doesn't "work" about it?

Menu

However, in Islam not all of his teaching are revered. Also, when did having 1/2 of the world believing in someone make that person an expert?

It's fascinating to me how folks like you and Paradoxum can put SO MUCH FAITH in 'scientific' ideas that have actually been falsified IMO, yet treat the topic of God in a completely different way than you would treat any other topic. The fact of the matter is that the "experts" (the ones that study the topic of God religiously) on the topic of God all claim God exists, just as the "experts" of astronomy all claim "dark matter" exists. None of those astronomer experts can A) tell you where it comes from, or B) hand you some in a bottle. Why believe in 'dark matter" only because it's some kind of "consensus" position, yet reject God even though most humans accept the idea?

That seems rather hard to rationalize IMO.

 

[Paradoxum]

I get the distinct impression that you're not actually clear about the "scientific method' and how it applies to 'big picture' sorts of issues. The "method" amounts to nothing more than "agreed upon dogma" when it comes to SOME scientific topics such as ASTRONOMY that do not produce any tangible goods.

How do you think scientists came to their 'agreed upon dogma'? I'm not sure exactly how you are using that phrase.

Nothing however actually runs or depends upon on 'inflation', 'dark energy' or 'dark matter' other than the budgets of astronomers. What "scientific method' applies to such things?

What do you mean? They are still trying to figure out what is going on up there.

Why do you 'lack belief' in God, yet 'have faith' in dark matter?

I don't have 'faith' in dark matter any substantial way. If I believed in God the same way I do in dark matter I would still pretty much be an agnostic. The way I think about dark matter is just that it is probably the most likely theory we have so far.

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

Dark matter FAILED a very important prediction recently. Did you notice?

"Strictly speaking, the results do not say that dark matter does not exist — they only say it is not here," Moni Bidin told SPACE.com. "We have not proven that dark matter does not exist, and even if we do, at this point we cannot explain many other phenomena that today are explained only by dark matter."

I'm not sure what you think it failed at. Wasn't the point to find out if there was dark matter around the sun, and the result was negative. All results are useful.

When was the last time you debated any astronomers over their faith in "dark" stuff?

Never?

What about if astronomers don't know and they just tell us we want to hear (we know something about it)?

Well then that would be interesting.

I personally use science to "fight against" science, such as that last article/paper on the recent failure of mainstream theory.

But not finding dark matter around a tiny section of the universe doesn't disprove dark matter.

The problem is that astronomers do not actually care that their theories FAIL consistently.

No theories in astronomy have ever been accepted as wrong? Like Steady State theory?

That's certainly true. I know of know particular "conflict' between my "religion" and "science". It all depends on how one "practices' science and religion.

IMO you're very NAIVE if you think 'large scale answers' (like cosmology or God) are based upon the 'scientific method'. They really are not. They are always based upon "faith in the unseen" (in the lab), without exception.

Well its all very easy to say that but I have no reason to believe you. The evidence for the Big Bang looks alright. It could be wrong, but there seems to be no reason to think it is.

As best as I can tell, your 'method' seems to be "Automatically have doubt in all forms of "religion", but automatically "have complete faith" in anything sold as a form of "science".

Not at all. I accept that healings could be evidence for God and I haven't made up my mind on evidences from the resurrection and surrounding events. There are also personal experiences I have had that could be from God. I am just unconvinced and that is why I am agnostic.

The reason I treat priests and scientists differently is because I think the latter have a better method for attaining truth. Theologians have long debated the same issues and there's no way of knowing who is right and no method accepted as the best.

Also it's not only with science, but also with history. I've never seen evidence for many historical claims.

Surely you've seen a "drug recall" by now.

I've seen people say a vaccine causes autism when it doesn't. Science can get it wrong, but how do you expect us to know when they get it wrong without harming our child in panic?

So any "theist" that simply "trusted Jesus" on the topic of God would pretty much be doing exactly the same thing, no?

If you met Jesus in person and He healed someone in front of you then yes. Otherwise you are believing a book and a fallible interpretation. I have little problem with that, I just don't consider them the same though.

FYI, it would likely be a complete waste of your time to actually try to defend mainstream cosmology theory to me personally. I've debated professional astronomers, on many websites in cyberspace on these topics for the past 7 years, and I am far more skeptical now of mainstream theory than I was when I started. I actually prefer Plasma Cosmology/Electric Universe theory for a wide variety of empirical reasons

And I'm not going to try to.

I guess I'm just mostly perplexed on why you don't apply that same logic toward the topic of God. If all that matters is "human consensus" and you're not really prepared to take the time to review every topic under the sun, why not apply the same rule of thumb to ALL topics, including God?

But my method never was never human consensus. Most people who believe in God are ignorant. It is the scientific method that I have faith in as it has been proven to work wonderfully. Scientists follow the scientific method in pursuit of truth. They may get it wrong, but I think it is reasonable to accept a theory they have confirmed because they will be right the majority of the time. I was a creationist for a few weeks until I found it hypocritical. I found it more reasonable to trust science a random minorities opinion that appears to be biased. I'm not accusing you of anything, just explaining my thinking.

Which comes back to my original question: who do you trust and why? If only yourself, then why do you think you know better?

 

[Davian]

...
It's fascinating to me how folks like you and Paradoxum can put SO MUCH FAITH in 'scientific' ideas that have actually been falsified IMO, yet treat the topic of God in a completely different way than you would treat any other topic.

There are scientific observations that support the dark matter explanation. You may find that they support alternative explanations. What scientific observations are there for 'God'?

The fact of the matter is that the "experts" (the ones that study the topic of God religiously) on the topic of God all claim God exists, just as the "experts" of astronomy all claim "dark matter" exists.

What about the "experts" on the topic of God that study the topic scientifically? Do they all claim that this "God" exists?

None of those astronomer experts can A) tell you where it comes from, or B) hand you some in a bottle.

Objections that in no way contradict their observations or falsify their hypothesis.

Why believe in 'dark matter" only because it's some kind of "consensus" position, yet reject God even though most humans accept the idea?

That seems rather hard to rationalize IMO.

If you are not making a delineation between a common consensus and a scientific consensus, I agree.

How would one begin an attempt to reach a scientific consensus on "God"?

 

[Davian]

There are a lot of problems with Science.

Sure there are, but many other methods of investigating reality have been tried, with much less success.

Would you prefer religious dogma and unevidenced assertions?

With God He is always there for you. No matter what the problem, God has a solution. No matter what the question, God has the answer. Perhaps His solution is different from our solution, or He does not answer the questions as soon as we want an answer. But God is always there for us. With Science sooner or later your going to hear that they do not have any solutions for you and they do not have answers to your questions. With Science in the end you die. Even if they claim they can keep you alive a bit longer. With God we are told that we can live forever. With God we are told about Paradise. Science offers us better living, but Religion goes far beyond what Science can offer. Science says we well always have war. The Bible says that when Jesus returns we will beat the sword into a plow. Perhaps this means our money will go to feed the hungry and not toward killing people and wars.

I will take that as a "yes".

 

[Michael]

How do you think scientists came to their 'agreed upon dogma'? I'm not sure exactly how you are using that phrase.

They simply "agreed" to it. When did "inflation" ever show up in a lab?

What do you mean? They are still trying to figure out what is going on up there.

They technically only have about 4% of it "figured out" by the way.

I don't have 'faith' in dark matter any substantial way. If I believed in God the same way I do in dark matter I would still pretty much be an agnostic. The way I think about dark matter is just that it is probably the most likely theory we have so far.

That was helpful. Thanks. Would you say the same thing about the topic of God? In other words are you "more or less agnostic", yet "lean towards" God as the 'most likely theory' we have so far to explain how we got here? If not, why not.

"Strictly speaking, the results do not say that dark matter does not exist — they only say it is not here," Moni Bidin told SPACE.com. "We have not proven that dark matter does not exist, and even if we do, at this point we cannot explain many other phenomena that today are explained only by dark matter."

I'm not sure what you think it failed at. Wasn't the point to find out if there was dark matter around the sun, and the result was negative. All results are useful.

FYI, from my 'skeptical' perspective, the negative results is just another example of the uselessness of mainstream theory at actually 'predicting' future results. We "should have" found a lot of "dark matter". We didn't. Our models are "messed up". We need to fix them.

IMO the term "dark matter' is simply "gap filler" to save an otherwise falsified theory related to galaxy mass estimation techniques.

Never?

They're as stubborn as any theist on the planet when it comes to clinging to their metaphysical dogma in the face of falsifying evidence to the contrary.

But not finding dark matter around a tiny section of the universe doesn't disprove dark matter.

What could disprove "dark matter" or God for that matter?

No theories in astronomy have ever been accepted as wrong? Like Steady State theory?

Some theories like tired light theories have been ASSUMED to be wrong without any evidence to support that claim.

Well its all very easy to say that but I have no reason to believe you. The evidence for the Big Bang looks alright.

It's simply one human "interpretation" of the redshift and galaxy rotation observations. There are other theories like tired light theories that require no faith in UNSEEN (in the lab) sky entities of any sort.

Menu

From the standpoint of empirical physics, what exactly "looks better' about BB Theory?

It could be wrong, but there seems to be no reason to think it is.

I just showed you one valid scientific falsification of the PREDICTIONS made by standard theory. If that doesn't give you reason to think it's "wrong", what might?

Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC

There are two more recent falsifications of mainstream theory when it comes them "accurately" predicting the amount of ordinary mass in a galaxy. The notion that the mainstream simply UNDERESTIMATED the amount of ordinary mass in a galaxy is consistent with those last findings too.

How much evidence to the contrary will it take for you to give up your faith in BB theory as the 'best' alternative?

Not at all. I accept that healings could be evidence for God and I haven't made up my mind on evidences from the resurrection and surrounding events. There are also personal experiences I have had that could be from God. I am just unconvinced and that is why I am agnostic.

FYI, I spent almost 9 years of my youth as a self professed atheist. I understand the "unconvinced' aspect of your dilemma quite well.

The reason I treat priests and scientists differently is because I think the latter have a better method for attaining truth.

In SOME instances, I would agree with you, particularly TANGIBLE PRODUCT producing branches of science. Big pictures sciences, particularly astronomy however are still groping around in the 'dark' ages at the moment IMO.

Theologians have long debated the same issues and there's no way of knowing who is right and no method accepted as the best.

In terms of pure science, God either exists or not. There is a "correct" scientific answer. Theology is ultimately "irrelevant" in terms of addressing that answer "scientifically".

Also it's not only with science, but also with history. I've never seen evidence for many historical claims.

Really?

Hezekiah's Tunnel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've seen people say a vaccine causes autism when it doesn't. Science can get it wrong, but how do you expect us to know when they get it wrong without harming our child in panic?

My attitude as a parent was typically if they don't NEED it, they don't take it. They've both survived into adulthood just fine, but school required some vaccines. One acne drug that I would NOT let my kids take was later pulled from the market due to damage it caused in the digestive system. It's been a good rule.

If you met Jesus in person and He healed someone in front of you then yes. Otherwise you are believing a book and a fallible interpretation. I have little problem with that, I just don't consider them the same though.

Every book has that potential. Is a book on astronomy today any more 'trustworthy" somehow in your mind?

But my method never was never human consensus. Most people who believe in God are ignorant.

One doesn't need to be a "genius", nor be particularly well educated to have a relationship with God and experience of God. Most people who believe in BB theory are totally ignorant of the basics too frankly.

It is the scientific method that I have faith in as it has been proven to work wonderfully.

I just demonstrated to you that it doesn't always work out so "wonderfully".

Scientists follow the scientific method in pursuit of truth.

What is the "scientific method" in your opinion, and how does that lead us to "inflation"?

They may get it wrong,

They do get it wrong all the time.

but I think it is reasonable to accept a theory they have confirmed because they will be right the majority of the time.

Really? They didn't even know of 'dark energy" until 20 years or so ago when they "made it up".

I was a creationist for a few weeks until I found it hypocritical.

I believe God 'created' this universe, but I've never been a fan of young earth creationism.

I found it more reasonable to trust science a random minorities opinion that appears to be biased. I'm not accusing you of anything, just explaining my thinking.

I appreciate your explanation of your opinions. They've helped me to better understand your position, not that I agree with it mind you.

I've always been a big fan of "science". In fact I would say that it was "science" that finally eliminated any sense of "strong" atheism and brought me back to theism eventually. Science however is filled with "flawed humans" that suffer from some of the same "group think" pitfalls of any group. It's no more "accurate" in terms of explaining how we got her than any religious text you might pick up. Most religious (including most Christian) followers believe in an ANCIENT earth.

In terms of how our physical universe came to exist however, there is no "science vs. religion" process in play. Science cannot and never will be able to tell us where the universe came from, whether it was "intelligently created", or anything of the sort. The best "science" can do is STUDY GOD'S CREATION from my perspective and give us some insights into how it works.

Which comes back to my original question: who do you trust and why? If only yourself, then why do you think you know better?

I trust a LOT of people, starting with Jesus based on the effect his teachings have had on my life over the past 50+ years. I trust the folks that designed and built my computer and my car. I trust my wife. I trust people who've earned my respect and my trust. I don't trust ALL areas of science or all religious dogma to provide me with "truth", but for the most part I trust scientists just like you. I don't have a one size fit's all approach to whom I trust, but the common denominator seems to be that my trust is typically EARNED.

 

[Michael]

There are scientific observations that support the dark matter explanation.

Actually there are some observations that refute the existence of "dark matter" and there are none that actually support it:

Dark Matter Near Sun Missing In New Study, Challenging Current Theories

Any observation of 'missing mass' is simply a demonstration of the utter uselessness of present galaxy mass estimation techniques. As a matter of fact, those techniques and assumptions have been shown to be wrong over and over and over again:

Astronomers find that Universe shines twice as bright | STFC
Galaxies Demand a Stellar Recount - NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Monster Black Holes Are Most Massive Ever Discovered | Supermassive Black Holes | Biggest Black Holes in the Universe | Space.com

You may find that they support alternative explanations. What scientific observations are there for 'God'?

Well, I would personally argue that everything that you see is an observation of God.

http://www.christianforums.com/t7440288/

What about the "experts" on the topic of God that study the topic scientifically? Do they all claim that this "God" exists?

Every self appointed priest and pastor I've met would say yes.

Objections that in no way contradict their observations or falsify their hypothesis.

They don't support it either.

If you are not making a delineation between a common consensus and a scientific consensus, I agree.

How would one begin an attempt to reach a scientific consensus on "God"?

Just add up the numbers and look at the statistics.