Not a sharp criterion—what I don’t understand is which claims are non-scientific yet can still be said with confidence to be true, without saying there is some chance they’re false, but we’ve just never encountered anything that contradicts them, so for now we accept them.
What claims would not stand up to a scientific test, yet can still be clearly known to be true? The idea of a God who does not intervene in the world is not scientific by the standards of science. Do you think that should be changed?
I don’t know whether what I’m doing is some kind of empiricism, but I genuinely can’t understand how something like God can be proven outside scientific conditions. By the same token, if God has been proven—as you claim—so clearly, then I don’t understand why He is not a solid part of science.

What I mean is that science obviously strives to know the truth, and to do so under the best possible conditions. In my opinion (and I assume in the opinion of most sane people too), it would be a disaster if science started accepting ideas that cannot be seen in repeated experiments (like a God who does not answer prayers, and there are lots of examples like that). It would be terrible because as a result we would have to accept lots of other things that are simply ridiculous, and we would hardly be able to see their effects. So why, in this case, is God not part of science, when there is a clear law that “every composite has a composer” and “the world is composite”?? Why don’t scientists accept that?

It is not true that science does not accept the existence of God. Science does not deal with God because His existence does not provide an explanation for phenomena in the world, and there is no observational way to test His existence. That’s all. Such matters belong to philosophy, not science. Just as psychology does not deal with the accelerations of bodies because that belongs to physics.
Science does indeed assume things that have no observational basis. Many such things: the principle of causality, that there is no action at a distance, that the laws of nature are constant and universal, and more.

But things in science are not proved only through observation. The story definitely doesn’t end there. There was a period during the time of Darwinian evolution when science (the overwhelming majority of it) accepted it even though we still could not observe the evolution of bacteria through natural selection (mainly because of clear proofs from the whole existing natural world). You said that complexity can be measured objectively in a scientific way (“science calls this entropy”), and science deals quite a lot with the existence of things and phenomena. So why doesn’t it accept God?
The principle of causality and the universality of the laws of nature cannot be observed either, but again, that is not the only way to prove something in science. We clearly see that only balls that are kicked go flying, and that works for everything else as well, and therefore science accepts it. With God this completely does not work (you can’t predict anything on the basis of God today), but maybe by another route—your route… Psychology does not deal with acceleration because it really is not talking about physics, but science would be happy to discover *anything* true about the world, including psychological effects and physical phenomena. That is literally the definition on English Wikipedia: "Science is a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world".

All right, you’ll have to forgive me. I’ve given up on this confused discussion.

I understand you, but it’s a shame. I still haven’t found a reason to believe philosophical arguments that science does not even accept as a premise.

I only hope that when it comes to morality you don’t apply those same criteria. Science also does not accept that murder or theft are forbidden.
All the best.

By the same token, science also does not accept that murder or theft are permitted. It simply doesn’t deal with that. But it does deal with investigating objective truth, and God certainly falls under that. I explained that fairly clearly.

Scientific tools simply aren’t built for that.
Science also will not deal with the question of the existence of Russell’s teapots; about that one can philosophize.
Assume God exists, characterized exactly as He is usually described. What scientific tool would confirm or refute His existence? It is on a completely different plane.
It’s like me telling you that there are ultraviolet rays that the eye cannot see, and you answering that they do not exist because you cannot see them.
You cannot rule out everything that science is incapable of measuring. This has become very popular, and people reject any claim that is not explicitly empiricist. But that is just an arrogant mistake. You cannot sanctify one method and think that arguments it cannot analyze are therefore wrong simply because our tool is incapable of dealing with them.
God forbid, I am not saying that all the “non-scientific” arguments should be accepted, only that they should be examined with other tools, if such tools exist.

You didn’t properly understand what I’m saying. I addressed all those things.
Science has set a threshold created by several conditions for belief in the existence of something (phenomena/things). I start from the assumption (and I believe you do too) that this threshold is the best one, in the sense that it filters out the most nonsense while also catching as many real things as possible in its net. If you give up even on a small condition like consistency and repeated testing of findings, you will have to seriously consider ideas like the Spaghetti Monster, which affects things spontaneously.
Therefore, assuming God exists as He is described—a God who is all-powerful and all-knowing, who affects things in the world by His free choice (and for some reason does not do so in prayer experiments, for example)—then indeed there is no way to know that He exists, and that is exactly what I am saying. The obvious rational conclusion is that He does not exist. The same goes for demons and spirits. These things cannot be tested under basic scientific (objective) conditions, and so we should reject them (because, again, an infinite number of unreal things could exist that affect and appear spontaneously).
I am absolutely not saying that we should reject everything science cannot measure. There is actually no proof of the existence of reality beyond my own imagination, and yet I still believe we are not living in a simulation. Why? Because it is good and convenient for me. It is convenient for everyone, and therefore accepted by everyone. If life really is a simulation, then other questions are irrelevant anyway.
The same applies in the case of morality. Contrary to what the Rabbi said when he took an indirect jab at me, I do not measure morality by science, for the simple reason that morality is not something that exists or does not exist. Morality is an idea, just like a state. There is no such thing as “the State of Israel.” You have a group of people holding papers that say they are citizens of a state called Israel, and you have some fences that human beings put up. States (and likewise “companies” like Microsoft) are not things that really exist. Any attempt to define a company falls apart. Is a company a group of people working? So what if you replace all the people? Is a company the machines that produce devices? So what if all the machines are replaced? Is it now a different company? A state remains the same even if all the people in it are replaced and even if its borders change a bit. These things are accepted ideas, not existing things that can be measured scientifically. I assume you agree about that.
God is clearly different from them. God is an existing entity (according to the claim) that affects and has affected the world in certain ways. Therefore we would try to measure Him scientifically. People tried, but it didn’t work, and intelligent design is considered pseudoscience. If the philosophical arguments worked, science would have to accept them. Science, by the way, is a subfield of philosophy; in the past scientists were called natural philosophers. If it really is true that every composite has a composer, and this is a law of reality, there is no reason science should not believe in the cause that composed the world. But so far it does not, and there is no such scientific theory. It is not that science cannot deal with these arguments, but rather that science, as an objective tool with a defined threshold of belief (which I assume you accept the logic of—one that filters out as much nonsense as possible while taking in as much truth as possible), has tried, but they did not work.
Sorry for the jumble of words; it was important to me to be clear.