Fine tuned universe

[Animavore]

I wouldn't mind. I already stated I can't prove it wasn't ordered by God but he still went and said, prove it wasn't God.

The point of challenging you to do so is to show that your results do not prove anything at all, because God could have produced those effects for you, just to fuck with your head. That's the problem with miracles, you see...unless you can prove that God does not exist, anything could be a miracle of God. In fact, EVERYTHING could be a miracle of God...even evolution.

Yes. It could. You're talking to me as if I don't already know this when I already stated that I do. But so what? Whether I factor God in or not the outcome is the same so believing or not believing God causes phenomena makes no difference except when you factor God in you leave more questions than you've answered.

So what? What leads you to the false belief that answers are required to every question? God may be complex and may add questions to those science already has about the nature of the universe(s) but so what? I would think this would be a challenge for science, because to me, assuming arguendo that God exists, the first question that comes to my mind is "how did God come to exist?" The second is "what is the nature of God?"

But instead of pursuing a scientific examination of the proposition that God, or something that we might reasonably define as "god" (like a vastly more intelligent entity inhabiting another membrane universe that chooses to dabble and intervene in this universe for reasons only it knows) science insists that God does not exist because God is not "necessary" as an explanation for the physical phenomena we observe.

But this is itself a conceit of science that's built in to the religious dogma of the religion of Science. Science assumes a priori that there is no god and that all things have a "naturalistic" answer. The conceit is the use of the Atheists Fallacy that uses human theistic descriptions of God to vainly attempt to "scientifically" define God as something "supernatural" and therefore ipso facto impossible and to be disregarded. Most wannabee pseudo-scientist Atheists found in places like this (right up to the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins) like to think that they understand the scientific method, but they don't. It is these sort of pseudo-scientists who blithely dismiss even the possibility of an intelligence vastly superior to our own that operates on a pan-universal scale that could be the author of some, many or all things in this particular universe but could be operating entirely within the "naturalistic" sphere of science, but outside the sphere of human knowledge and understanding of physics. They wrongly think that because God is "unnecessary" as an explanation, that therefore God cannot be the explanation. But this too is a conceit and fallacy of pseudo-science.

Actual science, however, must view the question of the existence of God as a valid scientific question to be answered in the same way as any other question about the nature of the universe(s), and even the Pope of Atheism admits this in "The God Delusion." Of course he then goes on to shove his foot right into his mouth by spending the rest of the book ignoring his own advice, but that's just because he's an inconsistent and incoherent religious zealot pretty much like every other religious zealot I've ever heard of.

I'm not sure where you're running off to. You seem to be putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my head.
Where did I even suggest that everything needs an explanation? I just said God leaves more questions then are answered. For instance, it's satisfactory for me to say what I saw when I stared at the sun was caused by a wobble in my eye and retinal burns. I'm happy to leave it there. Saying God caused this doesn't add any input. That's all I'm saying. None of this other stuff you're getting into here.

You really have to stop judging others with your preconceived notions and accusations of big-A atheism and ramming your vitriol down their throat.

[Seth]

I wouldn't mind. I already stated I can't prove it wasn't ordered by God but he still went and said, prove it wasn't God.

The point of challenging you to do so is to show that your results do not prove anything at all, because God could have produced those effects for you, just to fuck with your head. That's the problem with miracles, you see...unless you can prove that God does not exist, anything could be a miracle of God. In fact, EVERYTHING could be a miracle of God...even evolution.

Yes. It could. You're talking to me as if I don't already know this when I already stated that I do. But so what? Whether I factor God in or not the outcome is the same so believing or not believing God causes phenomena makes no difference except when you factor God in you leave more questions than you've answered.

So what? What leads you to the false belief that answers are required to every question? God may be complex and may add questions to those science already has about the nature of the universe(s) but so what? I would think this would be a challenge for science, because to me, assuming arguendo that God exists, the first question that comes to my mind is "how did God come to exist?" The second is "what is the nature of God?"

But instead of pursuing a scientific examination of the proposition that God, or something that we might reasonably define as "god" (like a vastly more intelligent entity inhabiting another membrane universe that chooses to dabble and intervene in this universe for reasons only it knows) science insists that God does not exist because God is not "necessary" as an explanation for the physical phenomena we observe.

But this is itself a conceit of science that's built in to the religious dogma of the religion of Science. Science assumes a priori that there is no god and that all things have a "naturalistic" answer. The conceit is the use of the Atheists Fallacy that uses human theistic descriptions of God to vainly attempt to "scientifically" define God as something "supernatural" and therefore ipso facto impossible and to be disregarded. Most wannabee pseudo-scientist Atheists found in places like this (right up to the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins) like to think that they understand the scientific method, but they don't. It is these sort of pseudo-scientists who blithely dismiss even the possibility of an intelligence vastly superior to our own that operates on a pan-universal scale that could be the author of some, many or all things in this particular universe but could be operating entirely within the "naturalistic" sphere of science, but outside the sphere of human knowledge and understanding of physics. They wrongly think that because God is "unnecessary" as an explanation, that therefore God cannot be the explanation. But this too is a conceit and fallacy of pseudo-science.

Actual science, however, must view the question of the existence of God as a valid scientific question to be answered in the same way as any other question about the nature of the universe(s), and even the Pope of Atheism admits this in "The God Delusion." Of course he then goes on to shove his foot right into his mouth by spending the rest of the book ignoring his own advice, but that's just because he's an inconsistent and incoherent religious zealot pretty much like every other religious zealot I've ever heard of.

I'm not sure where you're running off to. You seem to be putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my head.
Where did I even suggest that everything needs an explanation? I just said God leaves more questions then are answered. For instance, it's satisfactory for me to say what I saw when I stared at the sun was caused by a wobble in my eye and retinal burns. I'm happy to leave it there. Saying God caused this doesn't add any input. That's all I'm saying. None of this other stuff you're getting into here.

You really have to stop judging others with your preconceived notions and accusations of big-A atheism and ramming your vitriol down their throat.

Why? That's what this forum is for, except that it's usually used against theists. If you got some blowback from having the tables turned, well, put on some asbestos underwear next time and quit whining.

Your statement that "God leaves more questions then (sic) are answered" is a restatement of Dawkin's common canard against the idea that God exists, so I responded to that interpretation of your statement, which had to mean something and I strongly suspect that it was intended as a commonplace repetition of the fallacious notion that just because God in the picture complicates science's task of explaining everything, God ought not exist because it inconveniences scientists by making it difficult for them to draw valid and supportable conclusions about the nature of the universe(s).

I merely pointed out that this argument is a fallacious canard that says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, but only consists of a complaint that it makes things difficult for Atheists in their attempts to "debunk" God.

Oh, by the way about that whole judging thing... pot, kettle, black.

[Animavore]

I wouldn't mind. I already stated I can't prove it wasn't ordered by God but he still went and said, prove it wasn't God.

The point of challenging you to do so is to show that your results do not prove anything at all, because God could have produced those effects for you, just to fuck with your head. That's the problem with miracles, you see...unless you can prove that God does not exist, anything could be a miracle of God. In fact, EVERYTHING could be a miracle of God...even evolution.

Yes. It could. You're talking to me as if I don't already know this when I already stated that I do. But so what? Whether I factor God in or not the outcome is the same so believing or not believing God causes phenomena makes no difference except when you factor God in you leave more questions than you've answered.

So what? What leads you to the false belief that answers are required to every question? God may be complex and may add questions to those science already has about the nature of the universe(s) but so what? I would think this would be a challenge for science, because to me, assuming arguendo that God exists, the first question that comes to my mind is "how did God come to exist?" The second is "what is the nature of God?"

But instead of pursuing a scientific examination of the proposition that God, or something that we might reasonably define as "god" (like a vastly more intelligent entity inhabiting another membrane universe that chooses to dabble and intervene in this universe for reasons only it knows) science insists that God does not exist because God is not "necessary" as an explanation for the physical phenomena we observe.

But this is itself a conceit of science that's built in to the religious dogma of the religion of Science. Science assumes a priori that there is no god and that all things have a "naturalistic" answer. The conceit is the use of the Atheists Fallacy that uses human theistic descriptions of God to vainly attempt to "scientifically" define God as something "supernatural" and therefore ipso facto impossible and to be disregarded. Most wannabee pseudo-scientist Atheists found in places like this (right up to the Pope of Atheism, Richard Dawkins) like to think that they understand the scientific method, but they don't. It is these sort of pseudo-scientists who blithely dismiss even the possibility of an intelligence vastly superior to our own that operates on a pan-universal scale that could be the author of some, many or all things in this particular universe but could be operating entirely within the "naturalistic" sphere of science, but outside the sphere of human knowledge and understanding of physics. They wrongly think that because God is "unnecessary" as an explanation, that therefore God cannot be the explanation. But this too is a conceit and fallacy of pseudo-science.

Actual science, however, must view the question of the existence of God as a valid scientific question to be answered in the same way as any other question about the nature of the universe(s), and even the Pope of Atheism admits this in "The God Delusion." Of course he then goes on to shove his foot right into his mouth by spending the rest of the book ignoring his own advice, but that's just because he's an inconsistent and incoherent religious zealot pretty much like every other religious zealot I've ever heard of.

I'm not sure where you're running off to. You seem to be putting words into my mouth and thoughts into my head.
Where did I even suggest that everything needs an explanation? I just said God leaves more questions then are answered. For instance, it's satisfactory for me to say what I saw when I stared at the sun was caused by a wobble in my eye and retinal burns. I'm happy to leave it there. Saying God caused this doesn't add any input. That's all I'm saying. None of this other stuff you're getting into here.

You really have to stop judging others with your preconceived notions and accusations of big-A atheism and ramming your vitriol down their throat.

Why? That's what this forum is for, except that it's ususally used against theists. If you got some blowback from having the tables turned, well, put on some asbestos underwear next time and quit whining.

Your statement that "God leaves more questions then (sic) are answered" is a restatement of Dawkin's common canard against the idea that God exists, so I responded to that interpretation of your statement, which had to mean something and I strongly suspect that it was intended as a commonplace repetition of the fallacious notion that just because God in the picture complicates science's task of explaining everything, God ought not exist because it inconveniences scientists by making it difficult for them to draw valid and supportable conclusions about the nature of the universe(s).

I merely pointed out that this argument is a fallacious canard that says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, but only consists of a complaint that it makes things difficult for Atheists in their attempts to "debunk" God.

In the case I mentioned I feel it does leave more questions then are answered. Because factoring God into it I then have to ask, "Why would he do that?" Hence, quite literally, more questions than has been answered. I didn't mention anything about science or the larger scheme of things. You brought it there.

[Animavore]

And as an aside; I abandoned any thought of an interventionist God long before I found upon atheism as a viable world-view (having being led to believe atheism = nihilism by my Catholic school). The idea of questions of God being meaningless did not come, for me, from Dawkins, who I only heard of a few years ago, they came from my time spent into Buddhism. According to the Buddha questions like, "Where does it all come from?" and "Why are we here?" are a cause of suffering and agitation in the mind. So even if I had stuck with Buddhism and never become an atheist I would still be treating Fatima with scepticism and rejecting God as an answer because I would've seen it as an answer which leads to questions that lead nowhere. So if it's an "Atheist's Fallacy" to see no sense in factoring God into the equation then it is also one shared by Buddhists, Taoists, Jainists and I'm sure many other worldviews. Including some deistic ones.

[Seth]

In the case I mentioned I feel it does leave more questions then are answered. Because factoring God into it I then have to ask, "Why would he do that?" Hence, quite literally, more questions than has been answered. I didn't mention anything about science or the larger scheme of things. You brought it there.

So why would you say that if you were not objecting to that fact? "Oh dear, how inconvenient. If I have to consider God in the process of trying to figure out how things work, my job is more complex, so I think I'll just reject the notion that God exists and get on with trying to figure out how things work because it makes the job easier, never mind that it would lead to a completely invalid conclusion based on data that ignores an important factor in actually scientifically figuring out how things work."

That's exactly the same thing as saying, "Oh dear, how inconvenient that I have to actually figure out what the various components of DNA do and how they work in understanding how evolution might be the cause of life being as it is. I think I'll just ignore DNA entirely and claim that evolution is driven by pixies at the bottom of the garden."

Hardly a scientific method there.

Your statement has no other rational reason for existence than to imply that the complications of God are inconvenient to your belief that all things are "naturalistic" and can be answered by science using the assumption that God does not exist because he is deemed (by you, sans evidence) to be "supernatural" and therefore non-existent.

Deny it if you like, but the implication is perfectly obvious because it's an old, old Atheist canard that's tossed out with abandon whenever Atheists are challenged to support their irrational and illogical religious dogma.

[Animavore]

In the case I mentioned I feel it does leave more questions then are answered. Because factoring God into it I then have to ask, "Why would he do that?" Hence, quite literally, more questions than has been answered. I didn't mention anything about science or the larger scheme of things. You brought it there.

So why would you say that if you were not objecting to that fact? "Oh dear, how inconvenient. If I have to consider God in the process of trying to figure out how things work, my job is more complex, so I think I'll just reject the notion that God exists and get on with trying to figure out how things work because it makes the job easier, never mind that it would lead to a completely invalid conclusion based on data that ignores an important factor in actually scientifically figuring out how things work."

That's exactly the same thing as saying, "Oh dear, how inconvenient that I have to actually figure out what the various components of DNA do and how they work in understanding how evolution might be the cause of life being as it is. I think I'll just ignore DNA entirely and claim that evolution is driven by pixies at the bottom of the garden."

Hardly a scientific method there.

Your statement has no other rational reason for existence than to imply that the complications of God are inconvenient to your belief that all things are "naturalistic" and can be answered by science using the assumption that God does not exist because he is deemed (by you, sans evidence) to be "supernatural" and therefore non-existent.

Deny it if you like, but the implication is perfectly obvious because it's an old, old Atheist canard that's tossed out with abandon whenever Atheists are challenged to support their irrational and illogical religious dogma.

See? There you go again. Making assumptions into what I believe or think about things due to your preconceived notions. You're trying to bring a fight where there simply isn't one. I said ages ago that I agree with you that I can't show God didn't cause the "miracle" at Fatima or my own Sun-staring experience and yet here you still are, trying to pick a fight.
If I don't see the point of adding God into the equation it is not because it "inconveniences" me. It's because I simply don't see the point. Full-stop (period). But you go ahead and read what you want into it all you want.

[Seth]

And as an aside; I abandoned any thought of an interventionist God long before I found upon atheism as a viable world-view (having being led to believe atheism = nihilism by my Catholic school).

I see you temporizing now by moving the goal posts and creating a sub-category of God labeled "interventionist God." Nothing in physics or philosophy requires that God be "interventionist." God may be a right bastard or an uncaring or outright evil being, or may have left the scene a million years ago, but that says absolutely nothing whatever about the existence or non-existence of God, now does it?

The idea of questions of God being meaningless did not come, for me, from Dawkins, who I only heard of a few years ago, they came from my time spent into Buddhism. According to the Buddha questions like, "Where does it all come from?" and "Why are we here?" are a cause of suffering and agitation in the mind.

And Buddhism is a religion, and as you describe it a religion of "don't think about God because it leads to unpleasantness." This, of course, says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, it's merely deliberate denialism of the fundamental question. In that respect, science is much like Buddhism in it's willful ignorance and denial of the core question "does God exist?"

Which is why science is as much of a religion as Buddhism is...

So even if I had stuck with Buddhism and never become an atheist I would still be treating Fatima with scepticism and rejecting God as an answer because I would've seen it as an answer which leads to questions that lead nowhere.

But you don't know that they lead "nowhere," you ASSUME that they lead nowhere, and you avoid considering the issue not because you know it leads nowhere, but for precisely the opposite reason, because it leads to MORE questions, but questions that you are uncomfortable contemplating. Therefore you reject the notion of God not because God does not or cannot exist, but merely because you cannot contemplate the existence of God, or even the potential existence of God, without suffering and agitation in your mind.

In other words you are deliberately evading the implications of the existence (or non-existence) of God because of your own inability to rationally examine the subject in a scientific manner.

So if it's an "Atheist's Fallacy" to see no sense in factoring God into the equation then it is also one shared by Buddhists, Taoists, Jainists and I'm sure many other worldviews. Including some deistic ones.

That only points towards the intellectual pygmyism of the individuals who evade the question to preserve their mental and emotional Wa, not towards or away from the existence of God.

Now, that's all well and good, and you are perfectly entitled to hold your own religious beliefs about God and your Wa, but it's no sort of scientific argument against the existence of God.

[Animavore]

I see you temporizing now by moving the goal posts and creating a sub-category of God labeled "interventionist God." Nothing in physics or philosophy requires that God be "interventionist." God may be a right bastard or an uncaring or outright evil being, or may have left the scene a million years ago, but that says absolutely nothing whatever about the existence or non-existence of God, now does it?

It would need an interventionist God to cause a miracle. I don't see how that's shifting the goalposts. The point being made here is that I still would've rejected Fatima even as a deist. I know many Catholics that don't believe it either. It's not a big thing in Ireland.

And Buddhism is a religion, and as you describe it a religion of "don't think about God because it leads to unpleasantness." This, of course, says absolutely nothing about the existence or non-existence of God, it's merely deliberate denialism of the fundamental question. In that respect, science is much like Buddhism in it's willful ignorance and denial of the core question "does God exist?"

Which is why science is as much of a religion as Buddhism is...

Except science doesn't reject God. Most scientists are religious. It just says that it can't comment on whether God exists or not. This is actually the position of the Catholic church.

But you don't know that they lead "nowhere," you ASSUME that they lead nowhere, and you avoid considering the issue not because you know it leads nowhere, but for precisely the opposite reason, because it leads to MORE questions, but questions that you are uncomfortable contemplating. Therefore you reject the notion of God not because God does not or cannot exist, but merely because you cannot contemplate the existence of God, or even the potential existence of God, without suffering and agitation in your mind.

In other words you are deliberately evading the implications of the existence (or non-existence) of God because of your own inability to rationally examine the subject in a scientific manner.

I never said "I know" they lead nowhere though, did I? I said I would've seen them as questions that lead nowhere. I have no known way of following up such questions currently.

That only points towards the intellectual pygmyism of the individuals who evade the question to preserve their mental and emotional Wa, not towards or away from the existence of God.

Now, that's all well and good, and you are perfectly entitled to hold your own religious beliefs about God and your Wa, but it's no sort of scientific argument against the existence of God.

My Wa?
I never said it was an argument for or against the existence of God. Whatever made you think that?

[Seth]

In the case I mentioned I feel it does leave more questions then are answered. Because factoring God into it I then have to ask, "Why would he do that?" Hence, quite literally, more questions than has been answered. I didn't mention anything about science or the larger scheme of things. You brought it there.

So why would you say that if you were not objecting to that fact? "Oh dear, how inconvenient. If I have to consider God in the process of trying to figure out how things work, my job is more complex, so I think I'll just reject the notion that God exists and get on with trying to figure out how things work because it makes the job easier, never mind that it would lead to a completely invalid conclusion based on data that ignores an important factor in actually scientifically figuring out how things work."

That's exactly the same thing as saying, "Oh dear, how inconvenient that I have to actually figure out what the various components of DNA do and how they work in understanding how evolution might be the cause of life being as it is. I think I'll just ignore DNA entirely and claim that evolution is driven by pixies at the bottom of the garden."

Hardly a scientific method there.

Your statement has no other rational reason for existence than to imply that the complications of God are inconvenient to your belief that all things are "naturalistic" and can be answered by science using the assumption that God does not exist because he is deemed (by you, sans evidence) to be "supernatural" and therefore non-existent.

Deny it if you like, but the implication is perfectly obvious because it's an old, old Atheist canard that's tossed out with abandon whenever Atheists are challenged to support their irrational and illogical religious dogma.

See? There you go again. Making assumptions into what I believe or think about things due to your preconceived notions.

Of course. I'm analyzing your statements and I'm responding to them as I interpret them. That's my right. You are free to correct any misimpressions I have.

You're trying to bring a fight where there simply isn't one. I said ages ago that I agree with you that I can't show God didn't cause the "miracle" at Fatima or my own Sun-staring experience and yet here you still are, trying to pick a fight.

No, I'm trying to have a debate.

If I don't see the point of adding God into the equation it is not because it "inconveniences" me. It's because I simply don't see the point. Full-stop (period). But you go ahead and read what you want into it all you want.

You don't see the point because you willfully do not WANT to see the point.

I think it's of paramount importance to science and our understanding of the universe(s) and how they came to be to know whether or not God exists and whether or not God had anything to do with it.

Science may be able to demonstrate that organisms evolve but this does not disparage the hypothesis that God, or something we might call God, manipulated otherwise "natural" evolution at some time or another during the development of life on earth in order to guide evolution down specific pathways culminating in Homo Sapiens.

That's an important question that needs to be answered. Can it be answered? I don't know. But I do know that humans have demonstrated the ability to modify DNA in the lab to create entirely new and artifically-evolved organisms. This fact proves beyond any doubt or contention that intelligence can design living organism. It also proves beyond any doubt that it is possible that such genetic manipulation took place sometime, or several times, or many times in the billions of years before humans obtained the knowledge necessary to do so themselves. If we can do it, then some other entity not so very much more advanced than humans could certainly do so back before we existed in ways that would be impossible for us to detect...unless the Maker left a "Made by God" code in the genes somewhere, or unless the Maker decides to drop by for a visit and explain to us how and when he/she/it did what it did.

So, the question of whether God exists is not an unimportant or irrelevant one. It's just a difficult question. Science is not supposed to shrink from addressing difficult questions. But it certainly pokes the pooch when it comes to scientifically investigating the existence or influences of God on our universe. Indeed it institutionally denies that God exists and sees any attempt to scientifically examine for evidence of the existence of God as scientific heresy and engages its own version of the Inquisition to punish the heretics of science for their temerity in denying the rituals and dogmas of the religion of Science.

Which is anything but "scientific."

[Animavore]

In the case I mentioned I feel it does leave more questions then are answered. Because factoring God into it I then have to ask, "Why would he do that?" Hence, quite literally, more questions than has been answered. I didn't mention anything about science or the larger scheme of things. You brought it there.

So why would you say that if you were not objecting to that fact? "Oh dear, how inconvenient. If I have to consider God in the process of trying to figure out how things work, my job is more complex, so I think I'll just reject the notion that God exists and get on with trying to figure out how things work because it makes the job easier, never mind that it would lead to a completely invalid conclusion based on data that ignores an important factor in actually scientifically figuring out how things work."

That's exactly the same thing as saying, "Oh dear, how inconvenient that I have to actually figure out what the various components of DNA do and how they work in understanding how evolution might be the cause of life being as it is. I think I'll just ignore DNA entirely and claim that evolution is driven by pixies at the bottom of the garden."

Hardly a scientific method there.

Your statement has no other rational reason for existence than to imply that the complications of God are inconvenient to your belief that all things are "naturalistic" and can be answered by science using the assumption that God does not exist because he is deemed (by you, sans evidence) to be "supernatural" and therefore non-existent.

Deny it if you like, but the implication is perfectly obvious because it's an old, old Atheist canard that's tossed out with abandon whenever Atheists are challenged to support their irrational and illogical religious dogma.

See? There you go again. Making assumptions into what I believe or think about things due to your preconceived notions.

Of course. I'm analyzing your statements and I'm responding to them as I interpret them. That's my right. You are free to correct any misimpressions I have.

You're trying to bring a fight where there simply isn't one. I said ages ago that I agree with you that I can't show God didn't cause the "miracle" at Fatima or my own Sun-staring experience and yet here you still are, trying to pick a fight.

No, I'm trying to have a debate.

If I don't see the point of adding God into the equation it is not because it "inconveniences" me. It's because I simply don't see the point. Full-stop (period). But you go ahead and read what you want into it all you want.

You don't see the point because you willfully do not WANT to see the point.

I think it's of paramount importance to science and our understanding of the universe(s) and how they came to be to know whether or not God exists and whether or not God had anything to do with it.

Science may be able to demonstrate that organisms evolve but this does not disparage the hypothesis that God, or something we might call God, manipulated otherwise "natural" evolution at some time or another during the development of life on earth in order to guide evolution down specific pathways culminating in Homo Sapiens.

That's an important question that needs to be answered. Can it be answered? I don't know. But I do know that humans have demonstrated the ability to modify DNA in the lab to create entirely new and artifically-evolved organisms. This fact proves beyond any doubt or contention that intelligence can design living organism. It also proves beyond any doubt that it is possible that such genetic manipulation took place sometime, or several times, or many times in the billions of years before humans obtained the knowledge necessary to do so themselves. If we can do it, then some other entity not so very much more advanced than humans could certainly do so back before we existed in ways that would be impossible for us to detect...unless the Maker left a "Made by God" code in the genes somewhere, or unless the Maker decides to drop by for a visit and explain to us how and when he/she/it did what it did.

So, the question of whether God exists is not an unimportant or irrelevant one. It's just a difficult question. Science is not supposed to shrink from addressing difficult questions. But it certainly pokes the pooch when it comes to scientifically investigating the existence or influences of God on our universe. Indeed it institutionally denies that God exists and sees any attempt to scientifically examine for evidence of the existence of God as scientific heresy and engages its own version of the Inquisition to punish the heretics of science for their temerity in denying the rituals and dogmas of the religion of Science.

Which is anything but "scientific."

Complete bullshit though. As I said above, most scientists are theists. Including one of the early proponents of the Big Bang theory, Father Georges-Henri Lemaitre (a Catholic priest) who said that science cannot be used to prove the existence or non-existence of God. When the Pope went around declaring the Big Bang proved the moment of creation he said this.

As far as I see, such a theory [of the primeval atom] remains entirely outside any metaphysical or religious question. It leaves the materialist free to deny any transcendental Being. He may keep, for the bottom of space-time, the same attitude of mind he has been able to adopt for events occurring in non-singular places in space-time. For the believer, it removes any attempt to familiarity with God, as were Laplace's chiquenaude or Jeans' finger. It is consonant with the wording of Isaiah speaking of the 'Hidden God' hidden even in the beginning of the universe ... Science has not to surrender in face of the Universe and when Pascal tries to infer the existence of God from the supposed infinitude of Nature, we may think that he is looking in the wrong direction.

Christians often say you won't find God under a microscope so it would seem that even theists aren't looking for God through any scientific means.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Good thing, too.

[Animavore]

It's neither good or bad. If someone came out with a testable theory of God I would be highly interested in it. Myself? I wouldn't even know where to begin.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's neither good or bad. If someone came out with a testable theory of God I would be highly interested in it. Myself? I wouldn't even know where to begin.

"Good thing" as in they'd probably wind up loosing their faith at the end of the hunt.

[Animavore]

It's neither good or bad. If someone came out with a testable theory of God I would be highly interested in it. Myself? I wouldn't even know where to begin.

"Good thing" as in they'd probably wind up loosing their faith at the end of the hunt.

"Losing"

It may strengthen their faith. Like with Francis Collins. Science has no effect on faith. It doesn't inform or confirm it.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

It's neither good or bad. If someone came out with a testable theory of God I would be highly interested in it. Myself? I wouldn't even know where to begin.

"Good thing" as in they'd probably wind up loosing their faith at the end of the hunt.

"Losing"

It may strengthen their faith. Like with Francis Collins. Science has no effect on faith. It doesn't inform or confirm it.

Ah, but they would be going into this looking to provide proof for their faith. The search will fail. There will still be no proof for their god or gods. Some of them may start to reconsider their delusions. Most won't, of course.