"you are essentially stating methodological naturalism, which is exactly what I was referring to."
Science is built on the scientific method, not methodological naturalism. Naturalism is not science. Naturalism is a philosophy based on the logical conclusion that the laws of nature are sufficient to govern the world. It's claims may depend on science, but is in no way science itself, nor is science based on it.
"Im not talking about gods, Im talking about God, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe."
"we didnt define Him, He defined Himself
One can not define themselves.
"Humans defined science to exclude any examination of the kinds that would lead to direct knowledge about God."
No, see above. What god, muhumed's?
Re: Do they have schizoid, avoidant, or dependent personalities?
"To even ask that question is to descend into ludicrous anthromorphism."
No. It's a legitimate question to ask about any person someone else claims exists, but never shows up to introduce themselves.
“Science is built on the scientific method, not methodological naturalism. Naturalism is not science. Naturalism is a philosophy based on the logical conclusion that the laws of nature are sufficient to govern the world.”
You just don’t know what you are talking about. You’re confusing philosophical naturalism with methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is not a philosophy, it’s a philosophical assumption that underpins the very scientific method that you refer to.
Perhaps this will help you understand:
“Methodological naturalism is the label for the required assumption of philosophical naturalism when working with the scientific method. Methodological naturalists limit their scientific research to the study of natural causes, because any attempts to define causal relationships with the supernatural are never fruitful, and result in the creation of scientific “dead ends” and God of the gaps-type hypotheses. To avoid these traps scientists assume that all causes are empirical and naturalistic; which means they can be measured, quantified and studied methodically.
However, this assumption of naturalism need not extend beyond an assumption of methodology. This is what separates methodological naturalism from philosophical naturalism - the former is merely a tool and makes no truth claim; while the latter makes the philosophical - essentially atheistic - claim that only natural causes exist.”
To quote Highlander, there can be only one.
“One can not define themselves.”
“No. It’s a legitimate question to ask about any person someone else claims exists, but never shows up to introduce themselves.”
No, it’s not. You are falsely assuming that God, if He did exist, would have some personality or psychological traits that we observe in humans. That’s classic anthropomorphism.
Here’s some more help for you:
“Anthropomorphism or personification is any attribution of human characteristics (or characteristics assumed to belong only to humans) to other animals, non-living things, phenomena, material states, objects or abstract concepts, such as organizations, governments, spirits or deities. ... In contrast to this, conventional Western science, as well as such religious doctrines as the Christian Great Chain of Being propound the opposite, anthropocentric belief that animals, plants and non-living things, unlike humans, lack spiritual and mental attributes, immortal souls, and anything other than relatively limited awareness.”