> Izz wrote:
> Aubrey, is it valid to just assume that whatever science does not explain,
> is attributed to God?
>
> (DAVE 4/13) Izz: If something exists, then it must have "explanation".
> Since science is in the business of discovery and explanation, it is
within
> the realm of science to "discover" and, hence, "explain" anything.
Science
> and God do not have to be separated - something that science cannot
explain
> right now is only because science has not found the answer - it doesn't
mean
>
> it will never find the answer. Attribution to God can exist for things
> science can already explain as well as for what it can't explain. Science
> can simply be a tool for which mankind discovers what God has already
> created. ALL can be attributed to God, and ALL can, in theory, be
explained
>
> by science.
>
> I see no reason for these two to oppose each other.
>
> Regards.
>
> Dave.
>
Izz
You totally missed the point, Dave. Aubrey finds areas of science that he
thinks have no explanation outside of God, therefore he thinks they are proof
that God exists. Aubrey does not see that no gap in science leads to God;
neither is God necessary at all in science. Science is atheistic - without
God. A scientist may be religious; but his scientific work cannot use his
religious beliefs as any kind of evidence or proof. Religion and science are
separate beliefs, with separate methods.