[This is a response to the blog post: The Christian Foundation of Atheist Values.  The conversation shifted to God’s existence pretty quickly.]

No, science is not a search for reasons – it is a means of describing nature – nothing more, nothing less. I do not think science disproves God or proves God. However, there are certain God concepts that go against observations of the natural world; so science and religion sometimes clash. I think it is sort of telling that the only well-accepted scientific theories that you appear to reject as “not science” are the ones that happen to clash with a God concept associated with a literal interpretation of the bible.

Why is there order? Quantum fields, I suppose? The standard model? However, those theories are not *why*; those are simply theories based on the evidence we happen to have now, a large dose of math, some wishful thinking that the universe is actually all the things you assume it to be (i.e. that it CAN make sense); in the end they are theories explaining our observations.

Taken to abstraction – “God” exists – if He is simply the hypothetical “why” behind it all. Notice that in your list of characteristics of God – the only one that was not consistent with God=Nature was the last one. [“God is distinct and separate from His creation.”]

However, that does not the Christian God make – nor the Hindu gods, nor the Norse pantheon, nor the existence of souls, nor even a conscious thinking God that can make decisions, nor a personal God that communicates with us directly, etc.

The contention of a great many atheists is not that science somehow disproves the existence of A god, but that our observations of the natural world are inconsistent with YOUR god. Your god is not the only thing that can explain what science either hasn’t described yet or by it’s “nature” cannot explain. I could simply make something up – I could write a book, a creation story, that included a creator that was a lot like me; thought like I think, sort of looked like me (maybe thinner); and was really nice but was still powerful. I could make this creator in my story everything I want to be.

Would my story be the ONLY way to explain the universe and give meaning to the lives of everyone? Of course not. Might people find it compelling, find faith in the truth of my story? Why not?

This is the stance of the modern agnostic atheist – that not you nor anyone else has been able to produce the evidence to place your god concept as more plausible than any other one – that once you strip away the characteristics of God or the stories of god(s) that are no more credible than your average fairy tale or ancient myth – you’re left with a God = Nature proposition where-in the difference between a theist and an atheist is just semantics.

So, tell me – why do you think God exists outside nature? If you describe nature as all there is —- well, you get the trick there don’t you?