Quote Originally Posted by Fenn View Post
Well if we are talking about conscious beings than...no. I don't believe that. However, I think God might actually be a part of scientific knowledge.
If God is simply some force of nature then it is silly to call it God since that is not what the term implies to most English speakers.

What many Christians might call acts of God others will call coincedences. In fact many times when unexpected events occur people look for a reason, but really there doesn't have to be. Or does there?
By definition coincidences are unrelated. Also just like how our brains are structured to find faces in things, leading to paraidola, they are also structured to find patterns. As a general rule living as a simple hunter-gatherer it is more important to recognize patterns and faces, even if it means being overzealous, than to fail to recognize these things. This is part of why the God fallacy is so universal. It is in the nature of the human mind to see patterns and causal relations even where there are none.

Studies and research have shown that things which seem completely random at first sight, like the stock market or insect movements, actually involve deeply complex patterns. In fact, much of science involves searching for the causes of events and occurences.
Yes.

Could what many call God actually be the undiscovered rules and patterns which dictate the actions and reactions of people to situations and each other, a sort of "scientific karma," if you will?
We already have that and it's called the Standard Model and/or Causality.

I'm not going to pretend I have studied this idea, but I am simply trying to evaluate the plausibility of this idea.
Why call that idea God when that is dishonest and furthermore not religious. You are simply talking about causality and physics.