A poster on another thread claims he used the scientific method to the God portrayed in the Bible exists.
I would like to invite him to talk us through some of that.
For those unfamiliar with the scientific method, it is broadly building a hypothesis based on observations, and then evaluating the hypothesis by drawing predictions from it, and testing those predictions. The more predictions that are tested and confirmed, and the bolder the predictions, the more certain we can be that the hypothesis is right, or is at least a good model.
It's not complicated.
When reading Journal articles, some scientists actually want to know for themselves if the author's claims are true or not. Sometimes out of curiosity, and others because they'd done something similar, but it didn't work.
They examine the Journal article, work through the details of the experiment, check the data, and then using the same equipment, procedures, instruments, etc..... perform the experiment.
Now, a skilled scientist, with previous experience will know where the pitfalls are, and look for the data referencing such in the journal, or other reports dealing with a comparable experiment.
An unskilled, or less-experienced scientist will not be readily looking for such, and just focus on the data itself.
One thing I've never heard of is a scientist who'll run back to the previous author, after only one or two trials, and claim he's a fraud.
They'll continue to perform the experiment, looking closely at their procedures, the data, the equipment used, room conditions, instruments, etc....
They then document their findings--- including nuances--- and present them to the original author, or peer review process, so such can be corroborated.
Note that they won't talk to non-experienced, non-scientific types about it, who have no experience, or expertise on the specified field of study.
So, when someone like the atheists here tells me they've "done christianity before", but are not able to describe to be their experiences, I find myself scratching my head, wondering why not.
and I'm led invariably back to my studies in physics---- they can't describe it because they didn't actually do what Jesus said. They did what they believed was christianity, but not what it actually is.
they may have indeed grown up in a church, or attended a group, maybe even read the bible--- or "much" "some" "part" of the bible-- but not enough to have actually learned or done what is stated we're to do, to know.
You see, when a scientist does experiments, they're actually interested in learning the truth regarding that topic of interest. They're not trying to win an argument, or prove someone else wrong--- they want to know the truth.
And as Truth is always at the heart of scientific inquiry, there's not supposed to be any room for pettiness, or one-upsmanship.
This is why I find myself so curious about people who tell me they did not have my experience with what they call christianity, and I keep telling them it's about Jesus, not an institutional religion.
Scientific inquiry is about learning. It's about seeking understanding. Gallileo did not seek to prove he could be better than anyone else--- he wanted to understand what he was investigating.
Same with Copernicus.
Same with Newton, Euler, and the others.
So..... if you want to "do what scientists" do.... then start reading.
Start taking the time.
make inquiry--- not for the sake of berating/belittling-- for the sake of learning to understand.
As God is a person, and Christianity is not a philosophy, don't try to debate this from your perspective.
Take this from the perspective that you're engaging a real person (from the perspective that you've never met them before).
We who have met God, and Jesus, and whom God and Jesus have introduced themselves to..... we came at this not having a clue how it "was supposed to be done." We came, as "scientists" making inquiry, so we could better know the truth whereof we were instructed.