On the other hand, this does not bar me from deriving theorems about this universe. For instance, I might determine that by tweaking the initial parameters in the right way, that I will be able to control some parameter in that universe. Likewise, nothing is stopping me from occasionally breaking the rules of executing this universe. For instance, I’m entirely free to alter a parameter of the universe during “runtime” (whatever that is), which again allows me to control an aspect of that universe’s future. Furthermore I can always re-run the universe from a certain state if I am dissatisfied with the outcome.

Finally, suppose that one of my agendas in creating this universe is to create free-willed organisms. I could have any number of reasons for doing this. Perhaps I am curious. Maybe the same thing that compels me to create these creatures is what compels humans to adopt pets. Anyway, since these creatures are free willed, I probably shouldn’t mess with parameters that immediately affect their choices too much. I can, however, slightly modify parameters to goad these creatures in the right direction, if I feel that they need guidance.

You probably know where this is going by now. God is outside the scope of science, and is therefore irrelevant to science. However, that doesn’t make the notion of God irrelevant. Is it that much more absurd to suggest that something just winked into existence which became our universe, or that it has always been there? These kinds of questions seem to transcend science. I may be wrong about that, but who can confidently declare that science will answer those questions and not say that that isn’t a form of faith?

Some people find more value in believing that somebody greater than us is on our side than others. As long as those people aren’t using this notion to interfere with scientific progress or those aspects of their lives which are better addressed by science and rational thought, who are you to admonish them? Aren’t you imposing your opinion that a Godless world is better than a world with (one would hope) a reasonable God on them?

I’ve heard all those arguments that belief in God is dangerous, but so is becoming a pilot, or devoting your life to scientific research. Each choice has risks, but assuming that the person making those choices is responsible, then we have to assume that that person would minimize those risks. A scientist is likely to live his or her life without ever discovering anything important, or may eventually be the victim of some horrific lab accident, through some careless, innocuous, error. Does that mean that the scientist would give up science? Don’t bet on it. Likewise, if a person prefers to believe God, why would you assume that he or she would then prefer not to believe in God if God and science were reconcilable? Just because there is a risk?

As a final thought, I am aware of the age old argument: if God created us, who created God? I think that that’s a naive question to ask, perhaps akin to asking, “what came before the Big Bang?”, a question that seems to annoy many cosmologists, and perhaps even worse, because God is not really a well defined concept. Furthermore, I think the question of God’s existence is independent of the question of where we ultimately came from. To some people, the most important aspect of God is that there is a greater power on our side, not that everything was created by God.

[[I believe that God loves us but generally just lets us get on with our lives.]]

That’s a very convenient sort of God. He’s there if you want to muse about him or admire a sunset, but you don’t have to actually change anything about the way you live or treat other people. I’m okay, you’re okay.

[[Using the excuse of religion as an explanation for things we don’t YET understand is as ridiculous as Newton saying that God had to be responsible for explaining the motions of more than two celestial bodies because he couldn’t quite figure out the math for it.]]

You think Newton — Isaac Newton — came up with his notion of God’s intervention in Solar system stability because he couldn’t figure out the math for it??? You don’t know much about the man, do you? And BTW, it was the stability of the solar system he was talking about, not the n-body problem.

[[***There is no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole***

This is an outright lie, and one of the most insulting things you can possibly say to an atheist. It insults the memories of a lot of brave men and women who have fought and died for their countries.]]

Read for context. Nmal was posting about his experience as an addiction counselor.

[[I have a lot of trouble believing in any god that is “all powerful” enough to create everything from nothing, and at the same time, insecure enough to send people to be tortured for eternity for not worshiping him.]]

That’s a caricature of what Christianity actually says. Please do some research before making statements like the above. A good place to start, if you don’t want to read the Bible, would be C.S. Lewis’s books, Mere Christianity and The Problem of Pain. The latter devotes a chapter to exploring the doctrine of Hell. It isn’t what you think it is.