Every single bit of science weighs against a creator.
Talk is cheap.
You cannot rationally accept any science (and thus it cannot "help" support your beliefs) unless you accept the most fundamental principles of scientific reasoning and method, which say that faith has zero validity...
I agree that science (observation/testing) is used when faith isn't sufficient.
Faith is always by definition insufficient to support any belief. Faith is nothing more than irrationally disregarding that you don't have sufficient support for a conclusion but choosing to believe it anyway because it is was you emotionally prefer to be true. And with God and most other core religious beliefs, that insufficiency is beyond a mere absence of supporting evidence, but rather there is mountains of evidence that the conclusions are wrong.
But even science is frequently motivated by and often requires presuppositions.
The presuppositions are not faith based. They are the most plausible guesses based upon logically analysis of what is known to that point. And they are subject to future empirical validation or refutation, and only held with the level of certainty that the existing evidence supports.
We start out with the presupposition that everything is tentative unless or until proven wrong.
No, science starts by recognizing the logical probability that any particular idea is almost certainly wrong until their is evidence to shift that probability in its favor. In fact, it is logically impossible to start by giving all ideas tentative acceptance until proven wrong, because every idea has at least 1 and usually countless alternative ideas that are mutually exclusive. It is impossible to view them all as tentatively valid, because acceptance of one inherently requires the rejection of others. So, either you start by treating them all as invalid (which science does), or you start by irrationally and without evidence favoring one and rejecting others (which faith and religions do).
Correcting of mistakes is anticipated.
Faith and religion does not correct for mistakes. It violently attacks those who point out the mistakes and only reluctantly changes when social forces outside of religion put pressure on a religion to change or be abandoned.
And even if a hypothesis is (apparently) proven wrong we can't necessarily be 100% certain that the supposed disproof is sound. In other words, even scientists disagree on certain conclusions.
Correct, science, unlike religion and faith doesn't claim or treat as a virtue devout and certain belief because certainly always requires ignoring the most basic principle of science and going beyond what the evidence can support. Scientists disagree in part because they sometimes deviate from scientific principles, and in part because the relative probabilities supported by the evidence cannot usually be calculated with enough precision and leave room for error. Those errors get reduced with more evidence, which is why science shows directional progression toward consensus, unlike religion which has as much or more violent disagreement today as when all the existing major religions first arose.
...Any type of God belief or afterlife belief requires faith which ignores and goes well beyond what is supported by such evidence.
If you saw a miracle that would be observational evidence which might surpass your previously held "belief" in miracles
.
Saying it is "a miracle" starts with the faith-based preferred conclusion. What is actually experienced is not a miracle but a subjective experience that is only deemed to be a miracle on the basis of irrational faith. Every such experience has alternative explanations that are infinitely more plausible based upon logical analysis of all existing relevant evidence. There is no reason that actual miracles would be less likely to be caught on recording devices than any natural event, and no reason they should be less common today when we have the technology to validate or invalidate them than centuries ago. Yet, there is nothing recorded that doesn't have explanations that are more probable than being a miracle. And, whenever people do report miracles where we have the ability to investigate, they always turn out the be very obviously not miracles, proving that people who experience miracles are just emotionally blinded to the objective reality and unable to apply their own rational thinking to the situation. I have seen many things that you and most devout believers would wrongly conclude were miracles but I applied knowledge and rational thought, so I did not reach your wrong conclusion. Even when an event cannot be explained by our current knowledge of natural phenomena, inferring a miracle is irrational. The possibilities include that our knowledge of the natural phenomena is incomplete or incorrect and thus any one of an infinite number of natural non-god phenomena could be responsible. To favor the one possibility that it was God subverting natural laws (a miracle) over the infinite alternatives is to favor a conclusion that has a (1 / infinity) probability, which is the epitome of irrationality and anti-science. That doesn't even include considering the possibility that your sensory experience (which we know is prone to error) was wrong and a subjective distortion of what actually occurred.
So no, I don't accept that there cannot be observational, experienced evidence for God. All evidence, empirical or otherwise is derived from the senses.
Are you going to tell people they can't believe the evidence they observe?
No theism is based on what the believer observes. The God is never favored by any subjective experience for reasons I just explicated above.
And the totality of human experiences strongly disfavor any notion of God. So, the God hypothesis is not an act of believing what is observed. It requires accepting that belief prior to any evidence, then using that belief to dishonestly favor the highly implausible interpretation of even the most "miraculous" experiences, plus ignoring the 99% of observations and experiences that not only don't favor God but count as evidence against anything close to the conceptions that could be labeled God.
IOW, saying that theists are just believing what they observe is like saying that a racist who believes all blacks are violent is just believing what they observe because they claim that one night they saw a black man pull out what looked like a gun.
Thus, science makes rational belief in God impossible, requiring all theists the directly contradict the most basic principles of scientific thought, making any use of specific scientific knowledge an act of dishonest hypocrisy.
It might be your sincere belief, but generations of scientists have used science to confirm their belief in the existence of God.
No they have not. That is why none of them have ever published an argument for God that hasn't been thoroughly shredded for its clear distortion of the scientific facts and violation of basic principles of evidence-based reasoning.
Do you accept that Christian apologists like William Lane Craig draw heavily on scientific evidence in cosmology and astro-physics to support their arguments against a past-eternal universe?
I accept that they are dishonest charlatans who distort what science they use, deliberately ignore the 99% of science that contradicts them, and violate every principle of logical and scientific reasoning to link that evidence to their purely faith based conclusions. That is why none of them ever have published their arguments in generally respected scientific journals.
They abuse science in the same way Hitler did to support his conclusions. Merely making invalid use of selective scientific facts doesn't make science compatible with religion.
I agree that some of these theists are very intelligent and some actually do know a great deal about the relevant science. That is actually what makes the very blatant dishonesty and abuse of science in their arguments such strong evidence that valid use of science only contradicts God and cannot support it. If such smart and knowledgeable people cannot find a way to make a case for God that even a first year grad student could shred to pieces and show laughable, then it is clear that their is no way that valid use of science supports God.
You might not agree with the conclusions or inferences they draw from that scientific evidence but so what? Scientists don't agree on everything either.
This is NOT an instance of scientists disagreeing about the science. That entails scientists actually publishing scientific papers in respected peer-reviewed journals and arguing for differing conclusions. These frauds publish for-profit non-peer reviewed books because they know their arguments have no scientific merit and are not scientific arguments, so they don't even try to publish in legit science journals. It is no more a "scientific disagreement" than if someone who happens to have a Ph.D. in some science field posts on this board "Evolution never happened" or "All black people are evil." Sometimes people with science degrees say things via completely non-scientific channels that definitely wrong and nonsense so virtually none of their scientific peers give it any credence, and most of their scientific peers don't even bother responding because the person isn't even trying to honestly abide by the basic principles of rational discourse. Valid ideas get increasing acceptance and eventual consensus because the evidence for them continually accumulates. That is the case with all the crap from Lane Craig and others you are referring to. Only after an idea achieves widespread acceptance is it valid to refer to it as a scientifically supported argument, until then it is just something that is unlikely to be true that a person who may or may not have a degree is asserting.
