“No. It is built on the scientific method, which requires observables.”
Yes, you are essentially stating methodological naturalism, which is exactly what I was referring to.
“Do these gods know they’ve been defined by the humans?”
I’m not talking about “gods”, I’m talking about God, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe. So, yes, he certainly knows everything that we do. More importantly, we didn’t define Him, He defined Himself, and graciously provided us with some methods to gain at least a partial understanding of His nature. Science, however, can only ever be tangentially related to those endeavors.
“Why do they hide behind some human’s definition to avoid introducing themselves?”
He didn’t. Humans defined science to exclude any examination of the kinds that would lead to direct knowledge about God.
“Do they have schizoid, avoidant, or dependent personalities?”
To even ask that question is to descend into ludicrous anthromorphism.
"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.
"I’m not talking about “gods”, I’m talking about God, the omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe."
Which one?
"we didn’t 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.