Replies

As I said earlier, "We presume way too much when we put God in the square hole fit for human understanding."

I don't claim to understand God's reasons or His purpose. I take Him at His Word. My challenge (getting back to the thread) is to the scientist who, in applying Occam's Razor, discounts (without considering) that which they are unable to perceive. Since there is no consideration of the possibility of God, there obviously can't be an empirical proof.

God came among us in the person of Jesus Christ and didn't discount all of human history... He revealed and fulfilled it. Those that have come after Him seeking to discredit Him have done so by denying history and the evidence of His interaction in world events.

The heavens and the earth may pass away but truth is eternal. Those who come after us will develop new lies and fabrications... but they will discover the same truth.

I don't claim to understand God's reasons or His purpose.

That's not quite the issue, as I see it. Rather, the quesiton is..."Why is there a God rather than no God?" Why does he exist? What led to his existence? What set of conditions existed so that God's existence became possible? What's his purpose in the scheme of thing? Does he have needs? Wants? Does he lack things so that he feels the need to fill voids? Is God's need or desire to create the universe a sign that God is not as as complete as one might think? Oh well.

In any event, science must, in order to remain science, focus only on observable phenomena. If God is part of the observable world, he should be measured, catalogued, tested, retested, observed, etc. If he is not empirical, he should not be a part of science.