Is this it?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Reviewing the discussions of recent days, it seems a central theme is that because science cannot confirm any particular theory about the origins of the universe, this, in and of itself, supports the validity of religious claims.

Since this is a clear logical fallacy, I wonder if we could just vote on it, and then get past it, take the dispute as read between the theist and non-theists, and proceed to more fruitful levels of analysis.

For example, even accepting that a universe as complex as this must have had a 'designer', so what?

[DAC]

Reviewing the discussions of recent days, it seems a central theme is that because science cannot confirm any particular theory about the origins of the universe, this, in and of itself, supports the validity of religious claims.

Sounds like we're engaged in two different arguments. I was arguing that secularism has no claim to be more reasonable than religion, not that absence of a scientific proof of something demonstrates God's existence.

[udawg]

Well, since God's role in our lives has steadily decreased in large part due to new scientific discoveries throughout history, disproving many religious beliefs, I obviously have to vote for "science still has work to do". Obviously, as further work is done and further discoveries made, we will continue to understand even further the nature of (to infringe on a Douglas Adams copyright) Life, The Universe, And Everything.

Of course... science can explain how the Big Bang put the stars where they are from a central mass that originally contained all the matter in the universe.... but can it explain how that mass of matter got there in the first place?