Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

Ok, to the first point I think I get it: you're using the tired argument that since I can't show God to you or prove His existence like I can prove the existence of my puppy, that God doesn't exist. Just like you're claiming Zues is in my living room even though you can't show him to me or prove he exists. Is that where this is going?

-not even in that direction.  Just like suppressing revealed knowledge of a god is both not what accounts for my atheism and is inconsequential to my opinion of your religion - the existence of a god is incosequential to whether or not your claims about people and why they do or don't do x are either true or compelling.  As I said before, assume that god exists, and accept that some of us have never met the guy.  Just like you've never met zues and nothing more than that is required to explain why you don't believe in zues.

I do not pretend to be neutral. I have presuppositions, namely that the God of the Bible exists. And I would say you can't say anything intelligible about the world without God's existence.

You say the existence of God is inconsequential to you, yet here you are on the atheist forums attempting to suppress knowledge about God.

Here again, you may misunderstand other people in ways that ought to be easy to clear up by reference to yourself.  Is that what you're doing here?

I think you and I are in agreement: Presuppositions determine worldview. No one is neutrally seeking truth.

Is that fair?