The Science that led me away from Atheism.

[Sanoy]

This is not an ice cream shop. This is a discussion forum.

If you post an opinion, you can expect to have it commented on.

If you make an assertion, you can expect to hear requests for justification.

If you make a claim, you can expect to have it challenged.

And if you talk nonsense, you can expect someone to have the social responsibility to point it out.

If you can't handle these expectations this may not be the place for you.

Ice cream shops are not the only place to apply social common sense.

Good, you now recognize that it is my opinion rather than an argument. Amazing how many replies that required.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

If you took the time to consider those definitions rather than try to force it into them you would realize you are mistaken. Really 6? Is this a joke or do you just not care?

6? You don't think you presented subject matter? the definition of subject matter :

1) the substance of a discussion...​

You are Literally on a Discussion Forum! You've been presented with way more explanation, evidence and information on what an argument is but you still steadfastly refuse to concede your error. Perhaps you should frequent some other part of this Forum besides the Physical & Life Sciences forums? Be sure to report back if you come across an "Opinion" forum, won't you?

Good, you now recognize that it is my opinion rather than an argument. Amazing how many replies that required.

Everyone knew it was your opinion ever since you posted it, not sure why you would think otherwise... it's also an argument for all the aforementioned reasons everyone has tried to help you understand.

 

[Sanoy]

6? You don't think you presented subject matter? the definition of subject matter :

1) the substance of a discussion...​

You've been presented with way more explanation, evidence and information on what an argument is but you still steadfastly refuse to concede your error. Perhaps you should frequent some other part of this Forum besides the Physical & Life Sciences forums?

Everyone knew it was your opinion ever since you posted it, not sure why you would think otherwise... it's also an argument for all the aforementioned reasons everyone has tried to help you understand.

Those definitions are not saying all subject matter is an argument, that would be preposterous. You need to be more careful when you read a definition. It simply means that an argument can refer to a subject matter.

Good, you also recognize that it was an opinion. Opinions are not considered arguments. They are expressions of what one believes.

 

[Ophiolite]

Terms like "accident" and "random" were terms that were quite common until science began to see how idiotic it would be.

I took a random year, 1965, half a century away to see how often "accident" was used in technical papers and books. I used google scholar as my source. About 7,830 instances of "accident" were reported for that year.

I then looked at the first one hundred instances to see in what context the word was used. In all but two of those cases it referred to the conventional usage of accident. i.e. things like car accidents. Indeed the majority of the usages referred to car accidents, although other industrial accidents were mentioned, especially those relating to nuclear accidents.

The first exception was a paper discussing Aristotle's Categories. The paper is behind a paywall, but it does appear to be using "accident" in the sense you assert was common in the past.

The second exception relates to "accident of birth", which as a colloquial expression does not appear to meet your criteria.

So, there we have it, in a sampling of the approximately 8,000 occurences of "accident" in scientific papers in 1965, only 1% use the term in what you view as a prejudicial manner. I'm not sure how you expect this insignificant percentage to be reduced as a consequence of panic (?) at the words of proponents of ID. But, I'm game - let's take a look fifty years on.

No surprise here: more than ten times reported instances as in 1965. About 85,700, according to Google Scholar. Now, if science viewed the term "accident" in any context as idiotic, would it have increased the usage tenfold in half a century? I suggest not.

What about the usage? This article talks of a "pileup accident" related to the solar wind. This article discusses the possibility of conspiracy theories arising from a "nothing happens by accident heuristic". All the other examples from the one hundred instances I sampled were dealing with the conventional use of "accident", a great many of them dealing with Fukishima.

In short, this simple analysis completely contradicts your claim that

• In the past scientists often used the term accident (implicitly as a alternative to random or chance).
• They stopped using this term as a consequence of the writings of ID proponents.

If you wish to challenge this claim you will need to produce more detailed figures than mine. Good luck with that.

 

[Ophiolite]

Ice cream shops are not the only place to apply social common sense.

Good, you now recognize that it is my opinion rather than an argument. Amazing how many replies that required.

Seriously man. Grow up!

Your have an opinion. The reason you hold that opinion is personal incredulity. Your opinion and the reason for it were presented in the form of an Argument. Q.E.D.

Please refer to point 3 in my signature. To avoid that embarassment for you I am now placing you on Ignore.

 

[Ophiolite]

6? You don't think you presented subject matter? the definition of subject matter :

1) the substance of a discussion...​

You are Literally on a Discussion Forum! You've been presented with way more explanation, evidence and information on what an argument is but you still steadfastly refuse to concede your error. Perhaps you should frequent some other part of this Forum besides the Physical & Life Sciences forums? Be sure to report back if you come across an "Opinion" forum, won't you?

Everyone knew it was your opinion ever since you posted it, not sure why you would think otherwise... it's also an argument for all the aforementioned reasons everyone has tried to help you understand.

Man, there are days when I wonder how we managed to reach the moon. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't grant it a Ph.D. in logic! Thank you for providing a reality check.

 

[Sanoy]

Seriously man. Grow up!

Your have an opinion. The reason you hold that opinion is personal incredulity. Your opinion and the reason for it were presented in the form of an Argument. Q.E.D.

Please refer to point 3 in my signature. To avoid that embarassment for you I am now placing you on Ignore.

Part of maturity is knowing how to properly navigate social interaction. For example not taking an ad hominem like "Grow up!" as an argument. I take it as a sign you are frustrated rather than as an argument.

My statement was my opinion, I never presented a reason. (No, the pill is a personal expression). There is nothing illogical regarding oneself finding a hypothesis incredulous. Incredulity and credulity is just a statement of what you find believable. That only becomes an argument, and fallacious, if your incredulity is presented as a reason why something is false.

You are just wasting your time continuing on and on over your initial mistake. Maturity is also knowing when you are mistaken.

 

[dmmesdale]

Man, there are days when I wonder how we managed to reach the moon. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't grant it a Ph.D. in logic! Thank you for providing a reality check.

Under Trump they are talking about going back with an eye on Mars! Don't let em bait you.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

Those definitions are not saying all subject matter is an argument, that would be preposterous. You need to be more careful when you read a definition. It simply means that an argument can refer to a subject matter.

Yep! Just like yours did.

Good, you also recognize that it was an opinion. Opinions are not considered arguments. They are expressions of what one believes.

Opinions are arguments more often than they aren't. You provided reasons why your opinion was justified which entirely fits the category of an argument. You obviously love arguing semantics, don't you?

 

[Sanoy]

Yep! Just like yours did.

Opinions are arguments more often than they aren't. You provided reasons why your opinion was justified which entirely fits the category of an argument. You obviously love arguing semantics, don't you?

I am pleased you understand how to view these definitions now, though I don't follow that last remark.

I didn't provide reasons why it's false. Weird that you say I love semantics and yet you are the one that brings out the dictionary. As you came to misunderstand it I think you should begin to love semantics a lot more than you currently do.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I am pleased you understand how to view these definitions now, though I don't follow that last remark.

I'm glad you're pleased, of course I've always understood how to view definitions - still don't understand why you fail to grasp the simple fact that you presented an argument, even if it was rhetorical.

I didn't provide reasons why it's false. Weird that you say I love semantics and yet you are the one that brings out the dictionary. As you came to misunderstand it I think you should love semantics a bit more than you currently do.

Nope, no misunderstanding here, my friend - you provided reasons why you held that opinion, making it unequivocally an argument. An argument isn't solely contingent on providing negative assessment of a proposition, ANY assessment of a proposition is an argument, and you made one along with your proposition!

you know, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

 

[Sanoy]

I'm glad you're pleased, of course I've always understood how to view definitions - still don't understand why you fail to grasp the simple fact that you presented an argument, even if it was rhetorical.

Nope, no misunderstanding here, my friend - you provided reasons why you held that opinion, making it unequivocally an argument. An argument isn't solely contingent on providing negative assessment of a proposition, ANY assessment of a proposition is an argument, and you made one along with your proposition!

you know, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

I agree with your statement here - "I've always understood how to view definitions" You are quite adept at understanding how to view a definition, you are just not adept at understanding them.

You can assert that I presented an argument, but as the actual presenter of my statement I know it to be false, but that is no reason for you to stop believing that since you didn't require a reason to believe it in the first place. Probably because you are just stating your opinion.

There were no reasons supplied, if there were you would have rebutted them instead of making an informal objection of incredulity. They are mutually elusive objections, so you are either wrong about the one or wrong about the other. Which one do you want to apologize for? (Neither I'm sure, since you are still working on your character, assuming you took my suggestion of course.) You can assert there are, but I'll just shrug it away. My statement is a proposition of opinion, there was no assessment of it. Again, if there were you would have tried to rebut it.

 

[cloudsrider]

I wanted to do this for awhile and put the evidence that led me away from Atheism. The scientific evidence. And I felt that this post should stand on its own. To my knowledge I don't know that this is out there in one place and there maybe be some things that are not out there.



So for me it started with Quantum Physics. As I studied QP I began to become uneasy. I was seeing something that didn't match my world view. There was too much interconnectedness and well something bigger afoot. The Dual Slit experiment was the first problem for me as I began to see what looked like intelligent interaction between the matter/energy (depending on your interpretation and what is being tested) and the observer. I began to talk to physicists about this and was shocked at the responses. They didn't like this line of questioning at all. Because they knew it led to an outside intelligence. They assured me that it was all mechanical but that raised even bigger problems. If as most physicists believe and most people that study QP that its all mechanical from Quantum to Macro then we have a direct and necessary link between consciousness and matter. Which presents a huge problem in the creation of the universe. How do you get something form nothing without a conscious agent present? Then there is entangled particles that can transmit information instantly to the other side of the universe with ease. And what does this information do? It can reverse the spin on an electron on a dime. This is an amazing amount of energy from no where that can not be accounted for. And of course then there is the problems of Quantum Tunneling. For an Atheist all these things are problems. This is why many scientists didn't like these ideas when presented with them. Which brings us back to the beginning of the Universe.



We had nothing but a quantum field and the laws of relativity and that was enough to produce massive amounts of energy and mass. And before this energy and mass there is no time. So we have something that can not be tested in a lab that exists outside of time and space that creates everything? Sounds like God to me. At this point if you believe this you yourself are just a hop skip and jump away from a "God" you just call it something different. But you still have the consciousness problem. We know that we have only witnessed consciousness creating consciousness. We have never seen otherwise. We have never seen anything but life give rise to life. And so we are asked to accept on faith that it happened somehow without an outside intelligent agent for the first and only time and then everything else changes forever after that. Once again sounds like "faith" sounds like "God".



But that is not the real problem.



The real problem is in the math.



In order for things to evolve into different life forms you would need new proteins and new protein functions along the way. The best way to explain this would be that a new protein fold is the most basic change we would expect to get a new life form generally. And so work has been done to see what this would take. Without boring you with the details the math works out like this 1 in 10^77 for a new protein fold for an average protein (150 amino acid length) and 1 in 10^90 for a very small brand new protein (90 amino acid chain). To do this once if there was only once chance would be impossible as expressed by math done that calculates that beyond 1 in 10^40 is considered impossible. But there would be trillions of lifeforms that can have a go at it. But how many? Well the math has already been done on that and that works out to 10^40 total lifeforms since the dawn of life on this planet till now. That is everything from your dog and you to some pond scum. So after you work the math it comes to this problem. If everything single life individual life form that has ever existed on this planet had one unique try at solving the combinatorial problem you would still be left with a 1 in 10^37 chance at solving a new protein fold. The combination inflation gets worse though. Remember we are not talking about doing this once. Ohhhh no. We have to do this every time we need a new protein fold. Now you may say wait. Not all different protein functions have different folds. This is true but you still have the problem of brand new proteins and their math problems. We have over 10,000,000 proteins that we have estimated so far. It is also estimated that 10-20% of these are orphans or completely different. So now you are saying that we would have to go through the lottery with a chance of at least 10trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion in 1 chance .... not once but over a million times just for the orphans. The real odds then just for proteins to overcome this would look something like this:



1 in 10^74000000 now this is a very very big number. We have only 10^80 particles in the known universe. We have nothing that we can actually compare to the that protein number because nothing exists that can be counted close to it. Your asking me at this point to accept that you could win the Powerball lottery a trillion times in a row ... take a break on your fat yacht then do it another trillion times and repeat this process millions of times.



I was on board the atheist train until I began to see this problem. If you ask me to accept by faith that we could do 1 in 10trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion feat once. I will accept it. Because my belief was that "God" was too crazy so we are here so some how it happened. And even though its crazy unlikely it happened. It must have happened and did so without a "God". But when you ask me to accept that we have to go through that crazy lottery millions of times then I have to leave the reservation.



I debate atheists all the time not because its a hobby but because I like to test my beliefs. One of the questions is always where is the proof? But then what proof are you looking for? Are you looking for a glowing sphere in some undiscovered desert that will talk to you and grant you 3 wishes? Are you looking for a magic piece of toast? Something you can measure in the lab? If that is what you looking for then don't you think that would make the thing your looking for illegitimate to the task it must've done? How can something so simple that is trapped in our universe and subject to our laws be able to create something as massive as the universe? We are trapped in a box. What is inside this box can not be created by something in the box. In order to get a universe you need something more powerful then it. And yet as atheists we all believe in something similar by different names. We believe something existed outside of time and space and created everything out of nothing. I don't think that you should be able to directly measure "God" that would denigrate the very existence of such a being but I do think you can detect what this entity has done. Its in the math of the universe.



And now on for another problem that began to seriously trouble me. The irreducibly complex argument. We have all heard it before. Of course and most atheists myself will dismiss thinking that it has already been debunked. There have been answers to this argument but I am not sure they would qualify as debunking. We know of the classic examples the flagella motor, the eye, the blood clotting system. By the way the blood clotting system seems out of reach but I do not want to travel down this path. Rather I would suggest that all of life is irreducibly complex. When we get down to the cellular level its all interdependent with multiple chicken and egg problems that defy imagination. When we see functions in nature that operate at near 100% efficiency and do so with such ease that the host organism doesn't even think about these processes. From converting sunlight to chemical energy to converting chemical energy to mechanical energy we see design on steroids. We see a technological sophistication that is beyond our civilization as if put here for our amazement by an advanced alien civilization. I know of no single life form that either A. does not have irreducibly complex systems within itself or B. does not rely upon some other life form that does. I am beginning to suspect that all of life needs all of life and is therefore all interdependent. Such a grand system where you can go from molecular to planet scale and find connectedness and interdependence defies any other explanation then .... GENIUS.

So.. a wall of text with NO actual science, or any actual math.... just a few meaningless numbers and gibberish demonstrating a total lack of anything resembling education...

 

[cloudsrider]

Yes, you have summarized the issues very succinctly. Atheists generally ignore all of this by assuming materialism. They dismiss any argument referencing anything non-material by claiming "it *is* material". Hard to take it seriously.

 

[cloudsrider]

Except of course that ni "issues" were actually presented. Just a few numbers pulled out of his b*** and a wall of gibberish with some sciency words thrown in....but thats preaching for you..

 

[cloudsrider]

Only one way. The revealed word of God, the Bible.

So nothing but the little voices in your head then...

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

I agree with your statement here - "I've always understood how to view definitions" You are quite adept at understanding how to view a definition, you are just not adept at understanding them.

And of course, you'd be incorrect. Let's point out your argument in your original post:

If I wasn't a Christian i'd be a deist or something close. There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally. It's too big of a pill to swallow unless it's medication.

So here, your position statement as thus: "If I wasn't a Christian i'd be a deist or something close." - do you agree this is your stated premise (whether opinion or not is inconsequential, because the knock-down will follow)?

Then you Supported your premise with the following supporting position: "There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally." - It matters not that you think this wasn't an argument, all the parts to an argument are present and accounted for - you really do need to sit in on a Philosophy - 101 course to understand why you've missed the mark so furiously.

You can assert that I presented an argument, but as the actual presenter of my statement I know it to be false, but that is no reason for you to stop believing that since you didn't require a reason to believe it in the first place. Probably because you are just stating your opinion.

again, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it's a duck. Everyone can see you've clearly constructed an argument complete with premise and supporting position, even though just a 'position' would suffice as an argument.

There were no reasons supplied, if there were you would have rebutted them instead of making an informal objection of incredulity. They are mutually elusive objections, so you are either wrong about the one or wrong about the other. Which one do you want to apologize for? (Neither I'm sure, since you are still working on your character, assuming you took my suggestion of course.) You can assert there are, but I'll just shrug it away. My statement is a proposition of opinion, there was no assessment of it. Again, if there were you would have tried to rebut it.

Just pointed out your epic blunder above - here it is again, the argument in support of your premise you provided is:

"There just isn't enough to carry me over the extreme improbability that all existence came about naturally."​

No, no! No need to thank me - I consider it a public service, my contribution to building a better society, something I perform without expectation of reward...

 

[mark kennedy]

I wanted to do this for awhile and put the evidence that led me away from Atheism. The scientific evidence. And I felt that this post should stand on its own. To my knowledge I don't know that this is out there in one place and there maybe be some things that are not out there.



So for me it started with Quantum Physics. As I studied QP I began to become uneasy. I was seeing something that didn't match my world view. There was too much interconnectedness and well something bigger afoot. The Dual Slit experiment was the first problem for me as I began to see what looked like intelligent interaction between the matter/energy (depending on your interpretation and what is being tested) and the observer. I began to talk to physicists about this and was shocked at the responses. They didn't like this line of questioning at all. Because they knew it led to an outside intelligence. They assured me that it was all mechanical but that raised even bigger problems. If as most physicists believe and most people that study QP that its all mechanical from Quantum to Macro then we have a direct and necessary link between consciousness and matter. Which presents a huge problem in the creation of the universe. How do you get something form nothing without a conscious agent present? Then there is entangled particles that can transmit information instantly to the other side of the universe with ease. And what does this information do? It can reverse the spin on an electron on a dime. This is an amazing amount of energy from no where that can not be accounted for. And of course then there is the problems of Quantum Tunneling. For an Atheist all these things are problems. This is why many scientists didn't like these ideas when presented with them. Which brings us back to the beginning of the Universe.



We had nothing but a quantum field and the laws of relativity and that was enough to produce massive amounts of energy and mass. And before this energy and mass there is no time. So we have something that can not be tested in a lab that exists outside of time and space that creates everything? Sounds like God to me. At this point if you believe this you yourself are just a hop skip and jump away from a "God" you just call it something different. But you still have the consciousness problem. We know that we have only witnessed consciousness creating consciousness. We have never seen otherwise. We have never seen anything but life give rise to life. And so we are asked to accept on faith that it happened somehow without an outside intelligent agent for the first and only time and then everything else changes forever after that. Once again sounds like "faith" sounds like "God".



But that is not the real problem.



The real problem is in the math.



In order for things to evolve into different life forms you would need new proteins and new protein functions along the way. The best way to explain this would be that a new protein fold is the most basic change we would expect to get a new life form generally. And so work has been done to see what this would take. Without boring you with the details the math works out like this 1 in 10^77 for a new protein fold for an average protein (150 amino acid length) and 1 in 10^90 for a very small brand new protein (90 amino acid chain). To do this once if there was only once chance would be impossible as expressed by math done that calculates that beyond 1 in 10^40 is considered impossible. But there would be trillions of lifeforms that can have a go at it. But how many? Well the math has already been done on that and that works out to 10^40 total lifeforms since the dawn of life on this planet till now. That is everything from your dog and you to some pond scum. So after you work the math it comes to this problem. If everything single life individual life form that has ever existed on this planet had one unique try at solving the combinatorial problem you would still be left with a 1 in 10^37 chance at solving a new protein fold. The combination inflation gets worse though. Remember we are not talking about doing this once. Ohhhh no. We have to do this every time we need a new protein fold. Now you may say wait. Not all different protein functions have different folds. This is true but you still have the problem of brand new proteins and their math problems. We have over 10,000,000 proteins that we have estimated so far. It is also estimated that 10-20% of these are orphans or completely different. So now you are saying that we would have to go through the lottery with a chance of at least 10trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion in 1 chance .... not once but over a million times just for the orphans. The real odds then just for proteins to overcome this would look something like this:



1 in 10^74000000 now this is a very very big number. We have only 10^80 particles in the known universe. We have nothing that we can actually compare to the that protein number because nothing exists that can be counted close to it. Your asking me at this point to accept that you could win the Powerball lottery a trillion times in a row ... take a break on your fat yacht then do it another trillion times and repeat this process millions of times.



I was on board the atheist train until I began to see this problem. If you ask me to accept by faith that we could do 1 in 10trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion feat once. I will accept it. Because my belief was that "God" was too crazy so we are here so some how it happened. And even though its crazy unlikely it happened. It must have happened and did so without a "God". But when you ask me to accept that we have to go through that crazy lottery millions of times then I have to leave the reservation.



I debate atheists all the time not because its a hobby but because I like to test my beliefs. One of the questions is always where is the proof? But then what proof are you looking for? Are you looking for a glowing sphere in some undiscovered desert that will talk to you and grant you 3 wishes? Are you looking for a magic piece of toast? Something you can measure in the lab? If that is what you looking for then don't you think that would make the thing your looking for illegitimate to the task it must've done? How can something so simple that is trapped in our universe and subject to our laws be able to create something as massive as the universe? We are trapped in a box. What is inside this box can not be created by something in the box. In order to get a universe you need something more powerful then it. And yet as atheists we all believe in something similar by different names. We believe something existed outside of time and space and created everything out of nothing. I don't think that you should be able to directly measure "God" that would denigrate the very existence of such a being but I do think you can detect what this entity has done. Its in the math of the universe.



And now on for another problem that began to seriously trouble me. The irreducibly complex argument. We have all heard it before. Of course and most atheists myself will dismiss thinking that it has already been debunked. There have been answers to this argument but I am not sure they would qualify as debunking. We know of the classic examples the flagella motor, the eye, the blood clotting system. By the way the blood clotting system seems out of reach but I do not want to travel down this path. Rather I would suggest that all of life is irreducibly complex. When we get down to the cellular level its all interdependent with multiple chicken and egg problems that defy imagination. When we see functions in nature that operate at near 100% efficiency and do so with such ease that the host organism doesn't even think about these processes. From converting sunlight to chemical energy to converting chemical energy to mechanical energy we see design on steroids. We see a technological sophistication that is beyond our civilization as if put here for our amazement by an advanced alien civilization. I know of no single life form that either A. does not have irreducibly complex systems within itself or B. does not rely upon some other life form that does. I am beginning to suspect that all of life needs all of life and is therefore all interdependent. Such a grand system where you can go from molecular to planet scale and find connectedness and interdependence defies any other explanation then .... GENIUS.

Just a couple of things here, first the inference of God being Creator from the things that are made is a basic theistic principle in Christianity (Rom. 1:20). Secondly the abiogenesis problem appears to be unsolvable. There are also some problems with genomics and paleontology are a big issue with Darwinism. The Intelligence Design arguments are fine as far as they go but in Biblical Christianity the basic premise if that God created life, the two are certainly compatible but not the same.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

There's so so much we haven't figured out about our universe, but we've pretty much figured out there's a God?

God has revealed Himself to us through Special and General Revelation, figure that out.

Come on, be rational.

Rationalism without a God? How do you justify and account for transcendental immaterial reality? Sure we use logic, there is no way around it to have meaningful conversation, language presupposes classical logic, Science depends on it, but that is avoiding the issue of whether a worldview can justify and account for it. Just telling someone to be rational, assumes you are using reason, now account for the laws of logic without God, without the mind of God in whom logic is eternal and exhaustive and perfect.

As a species we are barely out of nappies, but we understand the will of the creator so so well.

We can understand so far as what He has revealed, to that extent, but we do not understand exhaustively, to do so would mean we are omniscient, it would also mean we are glorified, which we clearly are neither.

I don't think so.

And what line of reasoning led to that conclusion? Of course you're entitled to an opinion, but is it rational? Without assuming the existence of God first, what is reason? Human convention? And what if my reasoning say's your reasoning is fallacious? Are we stuck in a stalemate without truth? Is it all relative to the person? If reason is relative then we are stuck with the internalism of solapcism, which cannot account for an external eternal immaterial absolute law of logic, such as the law of non-contradiction.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

First about certainties... In science, an absolute certainty doesn't exist. For the simple fact that to have absolute certainty, you'ld have to know everything about everything.

You have to know everything about everything to have absolute certainty of laws of logic like the law of non-contradiction? No, I know better than that, and anyone that claims "fact" also depends on certainty.

That's logically impossible. We can use the word "certain" nevertheless though, reminding ourselves that there are degrees there.

In one breath you deny absolute certainty, and in the next you depend on it to make a claim such as "logically impossible". So which is it? Please make up your mind.

Because what if we really all live in a simulation of some sort? There is zero valid reason to think that. But it could be the case, why not? If it is the case, then what do we then really know for certain? We'ld have knowledge about the simulation perhaps, but simulation aren't real. You see?

Back to uncertainty, "absolute" uncertainty, but are you absolutely uncertain about that?

This is why we make a few basal assumptions, like
- the universe is real
- the universe is consistent enough to learn about it (ie: physics is what it is and works the way it does today, tomorrow and yesterday)

Are the laws of logic which Science depends on real?

Within that framework, we can have certainties, sure. Up to a point.

As for Gods and science........
To me, it's not different from the Simulation hypothesis.

So how do you account for and justify those certainties?

It could be the case, but there isn't a valid reason to think it is. So I treat both in the same way.

It is more reasonable to think the natural universe came into existence by an eternal uncaused Causer than to think the chains of cause for the universe regress infinitely, or to imply "spontaneous generation" of anything without a cause. It is more reasonable to think of a First Causer from which secondary causes created in a way to have the capability to continue the chain of cause and effect.