I don't think science sets out to prove or disprove the existence of God. I doubt if that is anywhere near the top of their priorities. If the finally agree a god does not exist. I imagine they would be more interested in how they did it and if it is a valid conclusion. It wouldn't change anyone's mind. Godbotherers would insist that not everything was considered and what about "my faith" and disbelievers wouldn't care because God was never an issue. If they did find God existed, they would have broken his cover and humans can then start to interview and question the nature of his being. Cool. No problem.
I have no problem with your view. It's fair enough for us to say "I don't know." Even those of us who are believers recognize there are mysteries that we may never understand.
Amen. From there, there are two totally distinct and VERY different ways of exploring. The fundamental basis for science is observation. So, we see the requirement for evidence, the importance of testing, the inability to address ideas that can not be tested. The fundamental basis of Christianity is that there is an all powerful supernatural being that can not be observed, but who can and probably does affect all things. That direction is not interested in observation, in that literally anything observed by mankind could well be false. I'm not interested in value judgements here. I just want it noted how totally different and entirely incompatible religion and science actually are. While some terminology SOUNDS the same (evidence, logic, etc.), these do not have the same meaning in the two different realms (as the Pope calls science and religion). So, one can not mix and match. That doesn't mean that science and religion can not coexist. But, I think it is a strong indication that there are questions best explored by one and not the other.
ISTM it is the concept of intelligent design that is a huge problem. This automatically implies a lack of free will. That what we refer to as creation is just fulfilling some role. This was a huge issue during the enlightenment because it described the relationship between man and the basis of his religion. Yet if ID didn't exist, God has no control over the direction of development of what believers say he created. There must have been some interesting conversations.
This is what I meant when I said you can't discuss faith via science. They answer two different things. You just put it much better than I did.
I think this is something that has to be emphasized multiple times and in different ways. So, I've liked your take on it. We don't do nearly enough science education in k-12 and require none after that. Thus, there are a LOT of people in America who don't even know what science is or how to recognize what is science and what is not science.
What Existed Before the Big Bang If you can figure that out there is nobel prize in cosmology waiting for you.
