[BikerNYC]

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.

[Heartlander]

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.

Do you base all of your beliefs upon science and empirical data alone?

[pgyanke]

We found something on which to agree:

"If he is not empirical, he should not be a part of science."

See Mind-Numbed Robot for more terrific thoughts on the issue. I enjoyed our conversation.