God Exists, Therefore Leprechauns Exist.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

The people of Mobile Alabama know there are
leprechauns!

originally posted by: FauxMulder

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

The people of Mobile Alabama know there are

leprechauns!

Lol.

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

Maybe god is a leprechaun. I invite you to prove otherwise.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

Maybe god is a leprechaun. I invite you to prove otherwise.

Why would I want to engage in trying to prove that?

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

Maybe god is a leprechaun. I invite you to prove otherwise.

Why would I want to engage in trying to prove that?

...to prove leprechauns don't exist?

I've been in both camps as far as God is concerned so I know how it is. I've looked for an answer to this question all my life.
I know it feels intellectually liberating to be an atheist and to pity others from the mighty superiority of one who knows the truth. But is an illusion.
First of all it doesn't seem that you've put a lot of thought into this matter but are mostly happy to borrow someone else opinion. Just to correct some errors in your OP:

Religion is not god. There are many religions and many gods. There are theories and philosophies and what not. If your ideas are formed only from reading the old bible and come here with it to prove the non-existence of god then you're no better than JW who knocks on people's doors with the same book in their hand.

We are creators, and have always been. We bring life on this earth, we grow living things, we think and change things according to our thinking, we heal and so on. But we are not our own creators. We can only improve, repair or copy ourselves or some parts.

Also from your OP: It seems that in your opinion everything we do good is because we are so great and everything we do bad is some god's fault. Double standard or what?

However.
What I wanted to tell you is that in fact there is evidence of god. But that evidence can only be personal, for you only. No one can prove god to you, just like no one can prove they are in love. Is the best comparison I can come up with. Unless it happen to you personally is just words. Is not something someone can understand intellectually. You either feel it or not. And if you feel it you don't need explanations nor the need to prove it to anybody.

So yes, maybe for you there will never be a proof of god, this whole thing is just rubbish; and that's completely ok. You may live satisfied with this, or you may keep looking, I don't know.
But you cannot deny someone else' experience just because you didn't have that experience. This is one thing the atheists don't understand. God is mostly a personal experience. You will never convince someone who's in love that love is just an illusion, some electric signal in the brain.
And just the same someone who's in love cannot prove the validity of his experience to others.
This why debates around god's existence or non-existence are useless and at most they just turn people against each other. Whatever we believe or don't believe is really not relevant to others unless we learn to accept and respect each other's experiences, and maybe learn from them.

I don't think Leprechauns and God are a fair comparison.

What I took from your OP is that we cannot physically prove God and we cannot physically prove Leprechauns, therefore they must be the same. That leaves a lot out.

A belief in God is more than just a belief in a fantastical being. It's tied into what happens after we die, what is our purpose on earth, how did humans, the earth, our galaxy and the Universe come into being. For many of us, a belief in God gives meaning to our lives.

A belief in God doesn't make one weak or delusional. It just makes one different than an Atheist.

When we start talking about religions like Christianity or Scientology....that's where it gets a little crazy. But we're not discussing religions here, we're just discussing the possibility of a God.

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think Leprechauns and God are a fair comparison.

What I took from your OP is that we cannot physically prove God and we cannot physically prove Leprechauns, therefore they must be the same. That leaves a lot out.

A belief in God is more than just a belief in a fantastical being. It's tied into what happens after we die, what is our purpose on earth, how did humans, the earth, our galaxy and the Universe come into being. For many of us, a belief in God gives meaning to our lives.

A belief in God doesn't make one weak or delusional. It just makes one different than an Atheist.

When we start talking about religions like Christianity or Scientology....that's where it gets a little crazy. But we're not discussing religions here, we're just discussing the possibility of a God.

The same principles can be applied to any mythological creature. By the same token that a god may be defended, vampires and leprechauns and crumple horned snorkacks may also be adequately defended and found to be plausible.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think Leprechauns and God are a fair comparison.

What I took from your OP is that we cannot physically prove God and we cannot physically prove Leprechauns, therefore they must be the same. That leaves a lot out.

A belief in God is more than just a belief in a fantastical being. It's tied into what happens after we die, what is our purpose on earth, how did humans, the earth, our galaxy and the Universe come into being. For many of us, a belief in God gives meaning to our lives.

A belief in God doesn't make one weak or delusional. It just makes one different than an Atheist.

When we start talking about religions like Christianity or Scientology....that's where it gets a little crazy. But we're not discussing religions here, we're just discussing the possibility of a God.

The same principles can be applied to any mythological creature. By the same token that a god may be defended, vampires and leprechauns and crumple horned snorkacks may also be adequately defended and found to be plausible.

I don't think you are really getting it. Your comparisons are not relevant.
Evidence of 'God' exists all around you, whether you believe God to be an all seeing all knowing creator, or even a creative process. Unless you believe everything you experience is a myth, then you have your evidence of creation. The same can not be said of vampires or other mythical creatures.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: amazing
I don't think Leprechauns and God are a fair comparison.

What I took from your OP is that we cannot physically prove God and we cannot physically prove Leprechauns, therefore they must be the same. That leaves a lot out.

A belief in God is more than just a belief in a fantastical being. It's tied into what happens after we die, what is our purpose on earth, how did humans, the earth, our galaxy and the Universe come into being. For many of us, a belief in God gives meaning to our lives.

A belief in God doesn't make one weak or delusional. It just makes one different than an Atheist.

When we start talking about religions like Christianity or Scientology....that's where it gets a little crazy. But we're not discussing religions here, we're just discussing the possibility of a God.

The same principles can be applied to any mythological creature. By the same token that a god may be defended, vampires and leprechauns and crumple horned snorkacks may also be adequately defended and found to be plausible.

But your missing the point. It's not just that God is a simple mythological creature. It's the meaning of life. The purpose of life. The creation of life and one's personal experiences in life. I don't know a single person that believes in little green men and has a more fulfilling peaceful life because of it, However I know millions who get that fulfilling peacfule, purposeful life from their beliefs in God.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: spy66

originally posted by: UKTruth
There is clear and undeniable evidence of God and no evidence at all for Leprechauns, so this comparison is rather silly.

First science must find God. And when they do, science will put their own Scientific name on their discovery.

And then science will make the claime...... that they discovered God first.

I can just see it happen lol.

Science is the study of God's creation. As of today, the scientific field is a primitive effort to grasp at an understanding of this creation, akin to a new born baby taking it's first look at the world. Your analogy is like saying we have to wait for that baby to tell us how to manage our lives.
The existence of God is undeniable and 100% proven. The word 'God' means different things to different people, but the evidence of creation is all around us and within us.
There is, however, no evidence for the existence of Leprechauns.

Can you prove leprechauns don't exist? I just googled it and there are lots and lots of search results. It appears they are taken quite seriously in some parts of the world.

There is no physical evidence. When there is then we will have some proof.

Maybe god is a leprechaun. I invite you to prove otherwise.

Why would I want to engage in trying to prove that?

...to prove leprechauns don't exist?

It would up to you to prove that they do, not the other way around.

There is an enormous amount of evidence there is no God. Harvard medical school, Duke, etc. etc have performed objective studies on prayer. It does not work. When all 16 studies involving prayer where statistically analyzed, obviously there is no one answering the 911 call.

Another example is evolution. Still denying it didn't happen and is happening today? Explain why microorganisms are becoming resistant to modern antibiotics! Even the Bible. The most powerful diety, the father, the son, the Holy Ghost, cannot remember his last words on earth? Tell me which ones were Jesus's words?

A. My my God, why have you forsaken me.
B. Father, into thy hands I command my spirit.
C. It is finished.

Should be easy being people have personal relationships with god. That of course no one else would understand but how about just asking him what his last words were. That would clear it up for all of us.

The story of the Tower of Babe, exodus, the great flood have no grain of truth to them. Why would God lie or have embellished? I mean damn, when you have created everything, I would think you wouldn't have too.

Denny

originally posted by: WhiteHat
I've been in both camps as far as God is concerned so I know how it is. I've looked for an answer to this question all my life.
I know it feels intellectually liberating to be an atheist and to pity others from the mighty superiority of one who knows the truth. But is an illusion.
First of all it doesn't seem that you've put a lot of thought into this matter but are mostly happy to borrow someone else opinion. Just to correct some errors in your OP:

Religion is not god. There are many religions and many gods. There are theories and philosophies and what not. If your ideas are formed only from reading the old bible and come here with it to prove the non-existence of god then you're no better than JW who knocks on people's doors with the same book in their hand.

We are creators, and have always been. We bring life on this earth, we grow living things, we think and change things according to our thinking, we heal and so on. But we are not our own creators. We can only improve, repair or copy ourselves or some parts.

Also from your OP: It seems that in your opinion everything we do good is because we are so great and everything we do bad is some god's fault. Double standard or what?

However.
What I wanted to tell you is that in fact there is evidence of god. But that evidence can only be personal, for you only. No one can prove god to you, just like no one can prove they are in love. Is the best comparison I can come up with. Unless it happen to you personally is just words. Is not something someone can understand intellectually. You either feel it or not. And if you feel it you don't need explanations nor the need to prove it to anybody.

So yes, maybe for you there will never be a proof of god, this whole thing is just rubbish; and that's completely ok. You may live satisfied with this, or you may keep looking, I don't know.
But you cannot deny someone else' experience just because you didn't have that experience. This is one thing the atheists don't understand. God is mostly a personal experience. You will never convince someone who's in love that love is just an illusion, some electric signal in the brain.
And just the same someone who's in love cannot prove the validity of his experience to others.
This why debates around god's existence or non-existence are useless and at most they just turn people against each other. Whatever we believe or don't believe is really not relevant to others unless we learn to accept and respect each other's experiences, and maybe learn from them.

a reply to: DaCook

Prayer and evolution?
Neither has any bearing on the debate.

We evolve every day and prayer is a man made construct aligned to religion which has nothing to do with God, unless you believe in some all seeing all powerful being that other men happen to have a calling to.

You are confusing man's interpretation of God with the clear evidence of creation.

a reply to: UKTruth

UKTruth. You seem to be missing a few facts. Why doesn't prayer work? And how about you present some evidence on creation. Why do 93% of the academy of science list themselves as non-believers. Why is Christianity declining so rapidly in your country that in as few as 25 years it may not even be considered a major religion.

Denny

originally posted by: DaCook
a reply to: UKTruth

UKTruth. You seem to be missing a few facts. Why doesn't prayer work? And how about you present some evidence on creation. Why do 93% of the academy of science list themselves as non-believers. Why is Christianity declining so rapidly in your country that in as few as 25 years it may not even be considered a major religion.

Denny

Prayer is a man made idea based on religion which is also man made.

Evidence for creation is all around you.
No scientists have yet shown that what we experience every moment of our lives was not created and then evolved.

The greatest scientist on earth is utterly dumb in terms of understanding the secrets of the universe and, whilst being dumb, they are just about smart enough to know they are dumb. The best human beings can claim is we're smarter than other animals, but we've only been scratching at the surface of understanding for a short period of time (a few thousand years - a blink of an eye in universal context).

There is zero conflict between evolution and creation.

You seem to be talking about God in the context of religious beliefs, whereas I am not. I don't believe there is a being listening to prayers. I don't believe in heaven and hell.

originally posted by: DaCook
a reply to: UKTruth

UKTruth. You seem to be missing a few facts. Why doesn't prayer work? And how about you present some evidence on creation. Why do 93% of the academy of science list themselves as non-believers. Why is Christianity declining so rapidly in your country that in as few as 25 years it may not even be considered a major religion.

Denny

Prayer doesn't work because you would be praying to yourself. God is not a being who oversees us. Conciseness is God. God is everything you see from the trees to the stars. Why is the golden ratio found everywhere in the universe? Christianity is declining because why would God or the creative spirit need a building or a book to experience itself? People are starting to realize what people like jesus knew. People who didnt understand wrote a literal book on parables that were meant to be a metaphor not taken literally. You can read the Bible and get 10 different meanings from 10 different people but unless you are connected to spirit you won't get it. You'll come away with stories of the devil and floods. God is found in love, laughter, and the beauty of the universe. Not some being in the sky.

a reply to: BlackProject

If you look more into the religions of the world, especially Hindu, Egyptian texts and mythology, you will find that there is a pattern that is not talked about openly anymore in modern society.

Have you ever heard that we are entering the Age of Aquarius? These "ages" that we go through are shown in religions. It has to do with the radiation that affects us from various constellations and planets.

We have just gone through the Age of Pisces which lasted 2000 years. Jesus is the "Archetype" of this age.

The radiation from the Pisces Constellation brings Compassion and Self-Sacrifice (which Jesus was all about). The planet that rules this age is Neptune, known as the God of the Sea.

Jesus is the Archetype God of the Sea and the Bible describes him baptizing in the sea, choosing fishermen as disciples, controlling the sea, walking on water, etc. His miracles are all about the sea, water and fish. The symbol of Pisces is the Fish. The symbol of Christianity is the Fish.

We are now going into the Age of Aquarius, ruled by the planet Uranus which is known as "eccentric" because of its effect and that it is the only planet that spins on its side.

This is the opposite of the first age of civilisation - Leo - when humans first began to use fire - "natural fire" described in the myth of Prometheus.

The radiation from Uranus causes our discovery of the opposite of natural fire - "fire through the air" which is electricity. Hence the sudden use of electricity now, and of course, technology.

Uranus also causes rapid change - which is why you see the rapid changes now, especially in technology.

I'm writing this quickly so if you have never heard of the ages talked about in the Indian religions or about radiation from planets and constellations, it all probably sounds very strange.

Nevertheless, it makes a lot of sense when you look into it more. Before the Age of Pisces was the time of Aries which was dominated at the end by the Romans - full of action and war. The Romans had temples dedicated to Aries and Mars.

The reason why the Bible and other religious texts are so full of restraints that people despise today, is that they are trying to stop or warn us about what is to come in the future.

Aquarius is the "Brave New World" of technology, survelliance and cloning that leads onto the Age of Saturn which is a hideous, awful time of mental slavery and hard-work. It's like George Orwell's 1984 world.

Don't believe me? Ok, but I promise you, you will see it happening in your life-time when you will see mandatory euthanasia being imposed on healthy people who are considered a "burden to society" because technology has taken their jobs and there is mass unemployment. This will happen in the next 20 years.

There is much, much more but this is just an outline.

Remember "atheism" is a very, very recent thing. The Age of Science is here and don't think it is not a religion! Because it follows the same rules as myths...

The pursuit of science "is just as irrational and emotional in its motives and just as intolerant in its daily practices as any of the traditional religions it has taken over from... It is not enough for it that it claims that its myths alone are true; it is the only religion that has the arrogance to claim that it is not based on any myth at all but on Reason alone, and whose particular mixture of intolerance and amorality is presented as tolerance".

Survive, No.9, August/September 1971

a reply to: BlackProject


Inventing the God concept was basically a waste of time, its a cop out for when things go wrong, you can then blame it on Gods will, which absolves you of responsibility. When deep down we know that to have any success we have to get of our asses and earn it with effort.

originally posted by: BlackProject

originally posted by: AVoiceOfReason
you only think of god in term of religion/bible. thats small minded. i was also an atheist because of what i just said. the bible is BS so god must be too. but the bible has nothing to do with reality does it. you know it, i know it.

you say your atheist and proud. so your basically saying you BELIEVE that the universe blew up out of nothing for no reason randomly. what is rational about that?

There is probably (rational realistic thinking) thousands and millions of variations of life like us throughout the universe but the point is, non of it is important.

Like Leprechauns for example?

Your double standard for aliens and God (possibly an alien by definition unless you want to focus on the subject of the immaterial; which of course is not included in the definition for alien but that doesn't mean aliens have to be material to be an alien unless that was specified in the definition) is rather noticeable. And how you evaluate the so-called evidence for the existence of extraterrestrial lifeforms in other locations of the universe but prefer to stick your head in the sand regarding the evidence for the existence of especially one God in particular* is also rather telling. * = but also immaterial gods existing outside of the physical universe in general (note that I'm not using the word "physical" as a synonym for "material", there's an important difference that I don't want to spend too much time on now).

Btw, most people already believe in the existence of immaterial things (not made up of matter) without the ability to make direct observations with the naked eye of these things. They often do this based on observing and studying the effects or phenomena that these things produce (using a cause and effect analysis and describing the cause and attaching an appropiate name to it). Some examples:

- gravity
- energy (of various forms including dark energy)
- love
- logic
- a variety of other so-called "forces of nature" that I'm not going to go through one by one

The fields of science/knowledge that provide evidence (in the form of effects, phenomena) for the existence of an intelligent Creator of the physical universe, its laws and forces and everything else in it including the biomolecular machinery and technology that make up lifeforms, are for example (some of them overlap as the sciences often do):

- biology, informatica
- physics, mathematics
- astronomy
- psychology, sociology
- archeology, history, anthropology
- mythology (in particular the study of ancient religious beliefs and how they compare to modern beliefs taught as "science" or theology, theological doctrines, see my thread about myths on ATS for details what I mean with this)

The list is by no means exhaustive (they are examples, some of which are discussed in more detail in the videos I shared earlier).
Some of these fields, especially the last 3 even contain clues and evidence regarding the identity and attributes of this Creator (or more obvious, clear or numerous than the other fields).

Some additional information about one particular God.
God: Insight, Volume 1

The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”

Proofs of the existence of “the living God.” The fact of the existence of God is proved by the order, power, and complexity of creation, macroscopic and microscopic, and through his dealings with his people throughout history. In looking into what might be called the Book of Divine Creation, scientists learn much. One can learn from a book only if intelligent thought and preparation have been put into the book by its author.

In contrast to the lifeless gods of the nations, Jehovah is “the living God.” (Jer 10:10; 2Co 6:16) Everywhere there is testimony to his activity and his greatness. “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.” (Ps 19:1) Men have no reason or excuse for denying God, because “what may be known about God is manifest among them, for God made it manifest to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.”—Ro 1:18-20.

More evidence and details regarding the various fields of science/knowledge I spoke about earlier and alluded to in the quotations above:
Real science, knowledge about realities compared to philosophies and stories

Oh, and for those who will watch the video about Isaac Newton at the end of my previous comment may notice that the man who made the most groundbreaking discoveries regarding the subject of gravity called it a "divine force" for logical mathematical reasons (and his conclusions drawn from the evidence, his observations and experiments, by induction; i.e. using the methodology to acquire science/knowledge about realities/facts/certainties described in the quotations below).

Rule I: We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to
explain their appearances.

Rule 4: In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phænomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, till such time as other phænomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions.
This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.
...
As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.

Source: Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

Just to be clear how the terminology was used back in his time:

Until the late 19th or early 20th century, scientists were called "natural philosophers" or "men of science".

Source: Wikipedia: Scientist