Rowan, Sells position is the only logical one for a Christian. Your God of the gaps, means that your God will be responsible for less and less of reality as we learn more and more.

To your main point though scientist don't use
God in science because he/she/it is not needed, no scientific understanding has been advance by inserting God into it, in fact the very opposite is true.

Humans being humans we often feel as though we have help from a higher power, this can come in the form of lucky pants or socks that have brought us luck through some means unknown, hell don't magic underpants feature in one of the christian sects?

Interesting article and replies, unfortunately we will never know, only what we believe or not believe, that being ones own imagination,, perhaps the answer is at death, but even that is a mystery

Yuyustu: You really believe something written fifty, a hundred years after the event, by a plagiarizing author, who heard from a man, who heard from a man, and so on and so forth; has any actually currency, let alone your so called proof?

You like anyone are entitled to your options, but please don't present them as fact!
You just don't know that! Nor can you own the literal facts!

And faith based belief is no substitute, otherwise all the atrocities committed around the world would have an equal place with any other "Certainty"!

And or, a one true God!

Which by the way, allows those with even more absolute certainty, to force their beliefs on all others, even at the point of a sword!

Think, not all that long ago one could have been excommunicated for refusing to accept a flat world at the very centre of a very much smaller solar system sized universe!

What can't be wrong yesterday, can't be in error tomorrow!
The alleged and never ever wrong Holy Spirit just doesn't work that way. If it ever was truly invoked!

If we could see but one religious leader lay his hands on and heal the sick and or infirm, (much greater things will you do than I) there could be some evidence for your beliefs!

Just because you contend something to be so, doesn't mean it is; but particularly when you rely on a patently plagiarizing and intensively embellishing Author, as you reference source!

I believe faeries at the bottom of my garden and real magic have more evidence based chance of being true, than the two thousand year old legend, which seems to have been used to allow more crimes (child abuse, sex abuse, theft and murder) and or absolute control, than just about any dictator.

Read Kevin Follet's historical novel, Pillars of the world, then come back to me with your pernicious parsimonious pseudonymous proselytism!
Best wishes for the yuletide season.
Rhrosty.

I can't help feeling a little sorry for those who need the crutch of belief in the man made invention of some supreme being, for their lives to have meaning.

Obviously Creator, Designer still is a thousand more times rational than the idiotic theory of such design coming from chaos. Those who deny the truth hate how illogical their unscientific idiotic theories are. Found the missing link yet? No doubt some fool will come up with fraud number 2050. He/she will win some 'science'award and then never be heard of again. The lengths that god deniers do to ignore basic observation defies belief. Then again Scripture clearly identifies these jokers.

Dear Rhrosty,

Sorry, but I find it quite hard to understand the syntax/grammar of your writing, hence understand what you are trying to say.

<<Yuyustu: You really believe something written fifty, a hundred years after the event, by a plagiarizing author, who heard from a man, who heard from a man, and so on and so forth; has any actually currency, let alone your so called proof?>>

Presuming you refer to the books of Judaism/Christianity/Islam, I think that it's an established fact that this "something" has quite a bit of currency, even today - just listen to the words of the carols on the radio and in supermarkets, or watch the news about Syria/Iraq: do you need any further proof that those books hold currency today?

And what "proof" of mine are you referring to anyway? proof of what?

<<And faith based belief is no substitute, otherwise all the atrocities committed around the world would have an equal place with any other "Certainty"!>>

Aren't those atrocities a certainty regardless of faith/belief? Do we need to believe the news/media for them to be true?

And you haven't even mentioned what it is which faith based belief is not substitute for!

Faith based belief is a religious technique, thus is meant to achieve religious results - naturally it is not intended to substitute other means for achieving any other ends.

<<And or, a one true God!>>

What should I make out of a sentence like this, standing on its own?

Sorry mate, best wishes to you too, but if you want me to be able to respond intelligibly to your posts, you need to gather your thoughts and write them using a coherent syntax.

Dear Hasbeen,

<<I can't help feeling a little sorry for those who need the crutch of belief in the man made invention of some supreme being, for their lives to have meaning.>>

So true, but as the vast majority of us sadly have no direct experience of God, until then we must instead rely on crutches such as this belief in a supreme-being, hopefully not for long!