Why is God scientifically redefinable?
(a) Recall that humanity had not always had rigorous modern science.
(b) Recall that a root guess that the universe perhaps began/had an origin-source; with respect to creator-styled entity sequences (the typical archaic claimed God, See any archaic cosmology that encompassed creator-typed god) had been established prior to modern science . (Digital Physics, Simulation Hypothesis, Penrose/Hawking singularity theorems ...)
(c) Recall that science is a medium that updates, as scientists produce new data. However, until now, the archaic science of Gods was not updated in modern science terms.
(d) For example, recall 'astronomy'. Science updated from astronomy in antiquity to modern astronomy.The word 'astronomy' maintained regardless.
And so, "god" is updatable in modern science terms.
Adapted from paper:
Actually, god is redefinable in any venue someone would wish to cite. The reason is simple: "god" is a concept without any form of hard, objective referent. As such, said concept does not relate to the real world in any meaningful fashion. Indeed, it has been discovered that when people talk about what god wants, scans of their own brains reveal that they are mapping their own desires onto their deity. God literally becomes whatever someone wants it to be.
Because of this profligate flexibility, I would say god is redefinable, but I would NOT say that it is in any way scientific, as there is no rigor to the definition(s).
The typical archaic God, like any humble archaic scientific construct, consists of particular properties; ie the ability to construe universes, and or create non-trivial intelligence.
Looking at modern science, humans have already began to create sophisticated universe (i.e. illustris) and humans can engineer non-trivial intelligence (update themselves by learning tasks)
So, God is scientifically redefinable, in modern scientific terms, such that scientifically unfounded properties are purged, while the above relation remains slightly modified.
Like humble astronomy, (that once included mythical components), God is yet another archaic concept that is redefinable by modern science.
Fine ... but HUMANS are accomplishing those actions through visible mechanisms and rational thought. What you appear to be suggesting is the redefinition of humans as god(s), which is totally unnecessary.
There is no more point in so redefining god than attempting to define god as nature or the whole of the universe or some other woo-inspired non-referent. Ultimately, "god" is a useless term. Laplace didn't need it. Neither do we.
Yes, but just like, for example, how astronomy was updated such that un-falsifiable components were removed, the archaic God concept is likewise updatable.
One may observe that this update is warranted, by already prominent/useful modern scientific works, such as Digital Physics, Adkinra Physics symbols etc.
In other words, whether or not we choose to ignore this update, it may occur, in a scientific manner.
No selling taking place...