Many things in science (notably those in the areas of the things that God specifically mentions as things that He has done or specifically mentions His answers to) are untestable and the best that can be done is make guesses.
We need not guess. We should not guess.
I hope you don't fall for any particular pseudo answers from science to any of the things that God has claimed for Himself and which science cannot test and verify.
I don't get my opinions about gods from science. It has nothing to say on the matter.
You've referred to the untestable twice already. I'll assume that you mean what I do - that which is not merely contingently untestable because we haven't invented the right machine yet, but that which is in principle undetectable because it makes no impact on matter. That's the so-called metaphysical realm. The empiricist isn't interested in any statement about that which is described and undetectable or untestable. Such statements are considered unscientific, and are neither correct nor incorrect. Some say not even wrong. They are also called metaphysical. One can speculate for centuries on such matters, but one will never acquire any knowledge in the process, meaning that discussing these undetectable metaphysical entities a sterile pastime. No useful answers come come from any pursuit not tethered to observation and experience. So it's not just that these matters are beyond empirical inquiry, they can be treated as irrelevant.
Here's a central truth: If one describes something as existing outside of space and time and being undetectable even in principle, one has just described every nonexistent entity. To exist, to be real and a part of reality, is to occupy a place through a series of consecutive instants and to be able to affect other real things and be affected by them. Things that don't meet that description can be ignored. How could they matter even if there was sense in which they could be said to exist albeit causally disconnected from our reality?
However you do land on the side which does trust in science for answers even if it is not any particular answers. It is just a trust in what man can find out through experiment. So why not trust in what man has experienced over the years in the realm of the spiritual and visitations from God?
I don't trust such reports, nor should I. My understanding of spiritual matters and of god beliefs comes directly from personal experience, and usually contradicts how others describe theirs.
A continual seeking of the right truth is a virtue however even from the ranks of humanism.
Agreed, but I don't consider faith a path to truth for reasons already given. In fact, I can conceive of no better way to begin to accumulate false beliefs than to begin believing by faith.
An even more virtuous stance would be to say that a God exists and to seek the truth of which God from that position.
I find no virtue there. That's a faith-based belief. Also, I've already done that, which is where I got my understanding of god beliefs and why people claim to know God.
Is there anything to lose in doing such a thing?
Yes. And I've already incurred such losses. Faith is a risky method for making life decisions. I married badly because I thought that the Spirit was directing to marry a woman in our church I barely knew and who it turns out I was not compatible with. The divorce was bitter. That's what faith can do for one.
What would the cost have been to me had I remained in Christianity? How many hours would I have invested in reading the Bible when I could have been reading things I could actually benefit from, or practicing guitar, or studying contract bridge - things I did that rewarded me greatly? How many Sundays would have been spent in church over 40+ years? How many hundreds of thousands of dollars would have been tithed away? I retired to the mountains of Mexico at 55 yo. I'd probably still be working and living in the States, both negatives from my perspective. And I probably never would have married my second wife of 32 years now. She's also a humanist.
I understand that you find meaning and value in your beliefs and want to share that, and for that I thank you, but there is nothing there for me in religion or faith. Your way of going through life is as undesirable to me as my godless, empirical way is to you. We each consider the other's path inadequate for ourselves. There's nothing that theism or religion has to offer a person who is happy without it just as I have nothing to offer you if you're content with a theistic worldview.
It isn't as if the existence of a God is out of the question and some things virtually shout to us that God exists.
Nothing shouts out to me that there is a conscious entity that created the universe. How could a god exist undesigned and uncreated? I consider that less likely a source of the universe than a multiverse, for example, which doesn't need to be conscious or organized. I don't know how that could exist either, but a conscious deity is orders of magnitude less likely.
Occam's Razor leaving the least number of problems for us, or the most easily problems to resolve, is never really a satisfying way to find the truth, if that is what we are after.
A satisfying answer to me is a correct answer, and a correct answer means demonstrably correct and thus useful for anticipating outcomes.
What Occam's razor does is what all
things called razors do: it limits (shaves off like a razor) the number of options worth considering, which is what makes it a valuable principle. It keeps hypotheses tied to observation. If everything observed can be accounted for without a deity, say the tree of life using naturalistic evolution, then gratuitously inserting a deity into the narrative adds no explanatory power, so why do it before some observation arises not adequately explained without positing an intelligent designer? Even then, Occam says not to make this intelligent designer supernatural if a naturalistic intelligent designer such as a race of superhuman extraterrestrials that themselves evolved naturalistically would suffice. Adding complexity that doesn't enhance explanatory or predictive power is the opposite of helpful.
