I wonder if Phi is proof that there is no God or that there must be?

>>>Well I still can't follow - you're somehow equating the expectation of future development of science to some sort of faith. And we're arguing that this isn't faith - we don't think that any particular result will be surely be achieved within any given time period, nor that it will be proven to fit with the rest of the knowledge once we have it, nor that it will not be unproven later. All of that is possible. I don't see any leap of faith here, and specially not the "credo quia absurdum est".
>>
>>I think the original statement contested was the assertion that it takes a leap of faith to say there is no God. I actually forgot about this somewhere along the way. IAC, I don't see how anyone could say that, given an unlimited amount of time, science will ever explain everything. To conclude there is no God, you almost have to get to that point.
>
>When you put it that way, you're almost right :).
>
>Saying there is no God is not really scientific - because the whole construction of it is built so that it is undecidable. What can, maybe, be proven is that there can't be a proof (for existence or non-existence). One of its major properties is god.lProvable=.f., pardon my Fox.
>
>I'm living under the assumption that there isn't one, and I know I can't be proven right (or wrong, for that matter). If there's a proof some day, then it can't be the same god we're talking about now.
>
>As for the science explaining... did you mean everything or Everything? :)
>It can't explain everything. There will always be more questions. And that's one thing I can almost believe: that new knowledge will bring more questions.