Say we were in the lab trying to prove the existence of God. To run such experiments, we may not only have time and space constraints to deal with, but also the possibility of other materials and emissions (dark matter and energy) and other dimensions (multi-universe); for the sake of completeness. Why are the rules different and why dis these experiments get less funding and end? All that was required to disprove God was a half effort with no excuses or exceptions. The push back reaction was that religious will not accept that lack of evidence, since they believe that all rocks have not been turned over, and that more experiments with better tech will pan out. The paranormal sciences seek their own funding. Since it is was a done deal due to no evidence with an half ass effort, then this is deemed pseudo-science. Why is this different?
Another similarity is, God is considered conscious and intelligent life with powers beyond human. Aren't intelligent aliens an approximation to this categorical definition? Science is looking for the atheist version of techie Gods, building lab temples, going through rituals, and having faith all with the hope their tech God will appear to them. Their alien gods could solve all the problems of the world. The religious faithful may go to the church laboratory, with towers that reach the sky, and use their neural transmitter (brain/soul) in rituals in an attempt to communicated with God. Do we call the lack of direct evidence faith based mythology? Why the dual standard? (quacks like a duck).
