My contact form has been neglected lately, people who have wanted to get a hold of me have just gone with the much easier and simple method of emailing me using one of the provided links. Yesterday somebody used the form. Here’s what this person had to say:

Before rejecting the supernatural altogether, we should consider the following fact. God is said to be spaceless, timeless, changeless, immortal and all-pervading. As per atheistic scientists God does not exist. And we also know very well that atheists do not believe in any kind of God. So according to both of them God is an imaginary being. But science has treated this imaginary God as real and shown that all the above five properties of God are actually scientifically explicable. Yes, with the help of the findings of special theory of relativity all these properties of God can be very nicely explained. If God is really imaginary, then why has science taken so much trouble to explain that imaginary God? So here either particular science is faulty, or if science cannot be taken to be faulty, then God is not imaginary.

Science is neutral, but scientists are not.

For the sake of argument let’s just assume that he’s right that science shows that the Christian God’s traditional properties are possible (of course I won’t stop any of you from doing a line by line dismantling of this in the comments). Scientists look for evidence then follow where that evidence leads. It’s not their fault they don’t find any evidence of an intelligent agent out in the cosmos.

It’s kind of like bigfoot. The existence of such a creature is possible, but when the only evidence you find is anecdotes from kids that were high on something, artifacts in blurry photos, and what looks suspiciously like a bear came through the area or some jackass was playing a prank on his friend, then there isn’t really any evidence that bigfoot is real. Thus, as possible as bigfoot is, bigfoot still doesn’t exist.

Lot’s of things are possible, but possibility doesn’t make for reality.