No new snow. In fact, we're starting to thaw today. Gonna be a big mess.
Please notice that I didn't use "God", or "prayer", in my post. You interjected them in yours.
Science depends on observation. The "start up of the Universe" [since "creation" doesn't suit you] - by it's very nature - could only occur one time, so it doesn't lend itself to observation or experiments in duplication.
Seems like I read something the other day where some scientists argue for a static universe that "just always has been".
The only thing scientist seem to agree on is that it couldn't have been designed by a Higher Power.
Didn't think Science was in the business of proving negatives.
Yes, my friend, I may have added a few things. There are many flavors of Theist here on The Fire, so please just consider those comments as directed toward them and not yourself.
As for your statements about science and observation, yes science requires observation, but it does not require
direct observation. As an example, we can know the orbital period of Pluto of 247.68 years, but we've only know about since 1930. Another example is dark matter. We've never directly observed dark matter, but we've observed it's effects through measuring the rotational velocity of solar systems, and it gravitational lensing, i.e. the effect of dark matter curving light as it moves through space. Gravitational lensing was first predicted, based on the hypothesis that dark matter existed, and then later observed. It is this, that science requires. That a hypothesis can make predictions that can be confirmed with observation, and those observations are repeatable, not a specific event in the past.
As for a static Universe, that went out the window with Edwin Hubble in 1923, and if you think the new mathematical model proposed by Sauyra Das of the University of Lethbridge in Cananda, supports a static universe, well, that's not quite right either. His idea is for a universe that is in effect eternal, due to time dilation, when everything was together before the universe began to expand. This leads to a universe filled with a super fluid of hypothetical partials. Because this is science, they are considering ways to test this hypothesis with real world, ahh, universe, observations, such as whether or not the observed distribution of dark matter in the universe matches with these mathematical predictions or not. Of course these would be
indirect observations, since we cannot directly observe dark matter. Of course disproving this hypothesis would not help your case. Regardless if science disproves the Das Model, the Krauss Model, or M theory, it moves us no closer to your position that (the Christian) "God did it", or any other supernatural claim whether it be Zeus, Vishnu, birds fluttering their wings over a primordial ocean, or Leprechauns.
As for your last statement, once again, you just misunderstand science, and the burden of proof. Since the Christian God is constructed in a way that is is an unfalsifiable claim, the burden of proof is upon the person making the claim, not the person who disbelieves it. The classical example of this is "Russell's Teapot", where Bertram Russel proposed it would be non-nonsensical for other to believe his proposal there was a tea pot orbiting the sun between the earth and Mars on the basis that is could not be disproven. Perhaps the only thing more nonsensical would be for scientist to spend a couple hundred million dollars on satellites to go look for it.
