Replies

Since the beginning of time, whenever man could not explain something, he attributed it to God.....just because we can't explain it (yet) does not mean that "God" made it....

You've done an adequate job of describing the intellectual filter through which you look at history, but not the history itself.

As far as people talking about science never having proven the existence of G-d and thinking that statement actually means something--those people have already assumed an affirmative answer to two previous questions: 1. Is there a definitive test by which "science" or "mathematics" could prove the existence of G-d? 2. Has the test been carried out?

The answer to the first question is that, up to this point, there is not such a test and that there has been little serious thought even devoted to the matter. Given the mindset of naturalism (similar to that of liberalism), there is little desire to spend time on it. The answer to the second question is no.

The immediate thought of many with respect to the first question is that if there has been no test, it just proves that G-d doesn't exist. This assumes that if such a being did exist, his existence would be subject to the conditions of the intellectual tool known as "science" and that, therefore, such a test could be devised. There is no reason to suppose this assumption to be valid. If anything, the most that can be drawn from the inability of "science" to devise such a test is that there are limitations to "science"; it certainly wouldn't be that whatever "science" cannot measure cannot possibly exist.

Thanks for the ping. Your opinions are always important and interesting.

To my own satisfaction I have concluded that believing in the existence of God is a personal choice since, by definition, that existence cannot be proven and any effort to do so, though perhaps interesting, is futile. If we define God as the Master of All, greater than all, unfathomable and infinte, or some similar but better description, we have already forclosed a conclusion. Were we to prove something we considered to be God we would have made it finite by the very act of defining it. Therefore it could not be God, THE God, it would have to be a lessor God at best. To prove God you would have to change the definition and that would defeat the exercise from the start.