At this moment I have a beard...
I have no idea what that should mean.
Maybe I'm God.

When I said comprehensible I meant at this time. I thought you knew that. Although it may never be comprehended. We just don't know. I don't deny the possibility that there is no god and never will. You're the one trying to offer proof that God doesn't exist. That's where this whole thing started. You even said that was what you were doing. I'd be very happy if I found out that God was simple and easily comprehensible. I don't rule out that possibility either but my guess is that if there is something so grande that it could make everything from nothing then it is likely it would be well beyond our grasp to truly understand it.

Well that's just a silly idea now ain't it. I wonder what you bearded him with ;).

I just think it's mean spirited to imply to someone they're less smart just because they believe in God. You can always make room for God. Even if it turns out he's just for entertainment. It's like me saying that man you thought was your great grandfather isn't. I have no proof he isn't but you have no real proof(assuming you can't retrieve his DNA) that he is.

I could give a damn what the dude thinks God is or isn't. It's that he points out how silly atheists are to try and disprove it.
Arguing I don't believe in God is like arguing I don't believe in alien abductions on earth. Is it possible there are? Yes. Are there dozens of more likely explanations for such incidences? Sure. Should you rule out alien abductions completely? Hell no.

Here Dovina, a real gift. You should enjoy this one:
http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm

I didn't say that. I said it's the only way to illiminate god from the equation(as in the possibility that God exists.) God is obviously not scientifically testable so does not need to be in a scientific equation but if he is I'm sure you'd need to know everything before you could make a perfect conclusion. Atoms have always been on earth but until someone discovered them, in human's minds they didn't exist. Although there were theories about them and what they do long before they were discovered. So maybe some day we'll have all the answers and then we can say for sure that God does or does not exist. Until then we're just guessing like they once did about atoms. Most likely niether of us will be here when everything is found out so why not fill in the gaps for now with an indefinite being like God and in doing so cover your ass just in case he really does exist. If your idea of God interferes with the logical process then in my mind it's not God you're thinking of.

;) Sleep tight.

only if science encompasses everything then can you eliminate God from the equation. That hasn't and most likely will never be shown.

I'm not trying to show you there is a God I'm trying to show you how silly it is to argue that there isn't. It's just as pointless as me arguing with you that God exists. Either you believe one, the other or are waiting for more info to pop up.
The only verifiable answer is I DON'T KNOW.
If you were my God you'd be incomprehensible but that's all a matter of preference.

Well I'm flattered. And I've always tried to think scientifically when it comes to things that science can explain but as you already know I think that science has it's limits. Eventually you're just left with guessing or settling with ignoring what you don't know altogether. In your mind I'm guessing science explains everything and so in a way it IS God.

Your take is basically my take on Ockham. I think he's just saying let's use what we know and not what we think we know in science. I have no beaf with that. It's using the word simple to describe concise or verifiable things that I don't like about his theory. I mean what's simpler than saying God did it?

Zodiac is the one trying to use it as proof that God doesn't exist.

That's what I'm saying. It's just stupid to try to disprove God.
Science can only go back so far and then it's left with nothing but conjecture to work with. At that point, your guess is as good as mine. To ridicule someone for believing it all started from something beyond our understanding at this point is to say your guess is better than their's, which is the epitome of arrogance.

Sure, this whole Occam thing wasn't an attack on Dovina's beliefs, right? Hurt begets hurt, sir.
Here's someone who said what I'm saying better:
http://www.chaim.org/atheist.htm
A true atheist would not go around saying God doesn't exists, he'd only go as far to say that there is no proof that he does.
That means it's our job to convince you he does exist not your job to convince us he doesn't. So stop being such a overzealous atheist.

What you can't comprehend is how scientifically he did it.
Since you're nitpicking my choice of words and not even considering what I'm trying to say I'll try using a different word. Replace comprehension with logical human understanding.
You can't comprehend my God. You can only comprehend the meaning of God you've decided on in your head. That is you've decided God is nothing but an imaginary person. That is the only thing you've comprehended. You're using the word God as a whatchamacallit, that's not comprehension.

Show me how this big bang appears from absolutley nothing and I'll show you the apple trick.

I know what you're saying and I'm perfectly fine with it. You're saying you'd rather say some force that we don't know about started everything than say it was a being. What I'm saying is that "I don't know" is the only correct way to respond and that the answers shown above are just as likely at this point. So it's anyone's guess. If a tree falls over then you could say the wind blew it over or God had a hand in it. You can disprove the wind theory but even if you prove the wind theory then you still haven't ruled out God having a hand in it. You could say the flap of one specific butterfly wing caused the chain of events which resulted in the wind that blew over the tree. Can you prove it? No. Is it wrong because you can't prove it? No. Is it easier to just stick with what you already know? Sure, but we'd still be like the middle ages if did that. Just don't assume things don't exist because at this point it seems unlikely. Some of the best scientific discoveries seemed unlikely at the time.

Please refer to your whatchamacallits in your begining of the universe theory for your convincing.

Believing that God exists has never complicated things for me. Maybe my idea of God is more flexible than the one Occam was talking about. He did live in the middle ages after all.

Yes, nonsense. Stuff that isn't defined like in your story of the universe. Do you think saying stuff that hasn't been determined is any different than saying a whatchamacallit? Do you really think me and Dovina use God as a reason for all these things. We don't respond to the question what's 1+1 by saying wait a minute I've got to ask God first. My point isn't that you should believe in God and this is why. My point is(and this has been Dovina's point from the start) that you can't disprove something that is beyond comprehension. Once someone tries to explicitly define God then their God is open to criticism but if you're just saying I'm not sure what God is exactly but I sense God's existence then it is pretty hard to disprove that. And that is why trying to argue with Dovina and me about if God exists or not is found to be nonsense. In reality, atheists merely fail to accept the theists' claim “God exists” and, hence, the initial burden of proof lies with the believer.
In short, it's our job to convince you God exists not your job to convince us he doesn't.

I don't think there's anything wrong with Zodiac believing God doesn't exist. I just wish he felt the same way about us believers.