The word to understand, Larry, is proof.

One has to declare the context of the word proof before the word proof has any meaning.

As example, I often use blue, which has quite the different meaning in the paint store than on the couch with the shrink.

So, if you want scientific proof, then we are in the wrong context.

The word God is, and never will be, a scientific word, so you cannot argue the point that God was not proven scientifically because that is the same as stating that a cat's tail wagging means the same as a dog's tail wagging.

The logic of Spinoza is that he points out that God can indeed be considered real, as long as one does so in the abstract.

And then it is very simple.

Establishing that the word Energy is the same as the word God is all it takes.

--

Let's investigate the word Energy.

Energy is always directed. With matter, for instance, we can declare that there is no matter that exists at a standstill. There is no matter that is not on the move.

With Energy seen as always directed, one can argue whether there is a Director in all of this, or whether Energy simply needs to be accepted as self-directed.

Either way, we can declare that there is more to Energy than just the superficial observation how there is energy. Energy also has a contents of its own, and for this discussion we do not need to go into the details, as long as we agree that there is a realm to energy that is more than just the superficial aspect of having energy.

What Spinoza therefore provided is that we can always find a real meaning for the word God. The most important word in this sentence: Always.

Just like Fahrenheit and Celsius have one spot in common (at minus 40 degree), the term God and reality will always have at least that one point where everything aligns.

It is like saying: Yes, cats and dogs have tails and they can wag (and leave it at that).

--

About scientific proof the following:

One-time events cannot be proven, and yet they are accepted as true in science.

The Big Bang, for instance, was a one-time event, and one cannot recreate the Big Bang. Once the vase breaks, the vase is broken, and breaking the pieces of the vase additionally do not constitute another breaking of the vase. One can break the vase just one time.

So, when we see an omelet, then we do not need any scientific evidence about egg shells nor any scientific evidence about the contents of the omelet to know with 100% certainty that the egg broke. We have the omelet, and from the omelet we can declare with certainty that the egg broke, even when there is not even a hint of egg shell in our view.

Same here, once we use the religious framework in which the word God is used, then there will be a spot where God can be accepted as totally aligning with our reality.

What we do next with that omelet is up to each of us. Some will eat it, others won't.

Thank you for your reply. I appreciate it.