[loser]

Gallo said:

As you must be aware, it isn't the business of science to delve into unsupported spiritualism and to postulate what happened in a time before time. That is the realm of religion... ...If spiritualists want to postulate that their god did it, OK. There aren't any observations the support or debunk that anyway. With no evidence one way or the other, if someone wants to postulate a magic being they can do so.... ...And that's why so many scientists don't give a rats tootie about religion.

It makes you wonder why (since it's beyond the realm of science) scientists spend so much time trying to refute/discredit/lambast those who DO believe.

But why invent magical, supernatural causes for natural events?

Unknown and unexplained science has always seemed to be 'magic' to the ill-informed but should 'scientists' be this superstitious? There's nothing magical about the supernatural; the supernatural is SUPER natural...it's science (though it's science beyond the ability of most men).

I'm quite alarmed at the extent of confusion displayed by modern scientists who really don't have a grasp of science at all. It's scary.

gallo, you really need to educate yourself on what magic is and on what religion is. Though the two can often be confused (just like science and magic), they are not the same. Your strong personal feelings about religion have clouded any objectivity that you may have ever had. Your constant denigration of religion/God/the supernatural along with your consequential false characterization of it as "magic" leaves one little choice but to dismiss your arguments as subjectively biased and unbefitting of serious consideration.

In short, your tirades on "magic" have become quite tedious, at best.

I don't need to know how the universe was created to know the god hypothesis contradicts proven scientific facts.

Qualify that 'rabbit-out-of-a-hat' statement. How does the existence of God contradict PROVEN scientific FACTS?

To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.

That is utter nonsense and nothing could be further from the truth. Whatever are you rambling on about? In the first place, what Stephen Gould claims is irrelevant...NOMA is a stupid acronym for an even more stupid concept.

In a good religion, God is real. Since God is real, science can verify His existence. If His 'physical' presence is beyond our reach (like black holes or dark matter), then His reality can only be surmised. Defining God may be equally difficult. If He was to visit mankind, His presence would expand our present understanding of things 'supernatural'. Yet, would His presence cause mankind to start believing in 'God' or would it actually cause more people to reject Him (as an invading alien)?

At any rate, on scientific grounds, do you see a problem with the birth of Jesus to a virgin mother and NO human father?

If so, what is your contention? Is it impossible?

Either Jesus had a father or he didn't. The question is a scientific one, and scientific evidence, if any were available, would be used to settle it. The same is true of any miracle — and the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe would have to have been the mother and father of all miracles. Either it happened or it didn't. It is a fact, one way or the other, and in our state of uncertainty we can put a probability on it — an estimate that may change as more information comes in.

On this, we agree. Except...how would "the deliberate and intentional creation of the universe" be any more "the mother and father of all miracles" than the non-intentional random and accidental creation of the universe? The miracle of existence EXISTS with or without God. The difference? If God exists, we will gain knowledge about all creation one day. If He doesn't, we will never know.