Hey Alexander! I wanted to respond to a few things you said. Hopefully you don't feel like all us authors are descending on you like vultures. I just think you bring up some interesting things that I would like to share my thoughts about. Maybe the conversation has gone over these points already so if you feel I'm not contributing anything new, don't feel obliged to respond.

I do not think science is separate from philosophy. I think science is the application of certain philosophical ideas - you could call it a pragmatic philosophy of epistemology. It is concerned with determining truths, using methods from various philosophical schools (mainly empiricism and rationalism). But it works both ways, because scientific knowledge can influence philosophical ideas - think of the philosophy of mind: experiments from neuroscience can help answer questions that before could only be approached philosophically.

So I think it really depends on what the question is that determines whether you can use science or not to find out the answer. And so it comes down to what you mean by "god" and "existence" that will determine whether you can use science to find out whether "god exists". If God is supposed to transcend the natural world, then it is out of reach of science. But if you say that God has an active role in the events of the universe (e.g. answering prayers), then that influence should be measurable, and hence testable, and hence it can be scientifically investigated whether this indeed happens.

Well, thank you for your confidence that this reply will be mean and full of verbal abuse, and that you will not care about anything I say. Where would I be without being condescendingly stigmatized before I even open my mouth. Is this what you mean when you say you "love" me?

Seriously though, did you even read the post? It seems that you didn't, and I think you should. I think (hope) you'll find it provides food for thought, and I would very much like to hear if you think I'm wrong (and more importantly: why).

Use HTML, not BBCode ;-) And I think you might have to use blockquote and not quote.

Alright. Do you want me to quote some other random people back at you?

Dark matter is a placeholder name for something we are ignorant about. It is indeed hypothesized matter, but it was hypothesized as a result of the observation that the perceived mass of the universe does not account for the perceived gravity. Gravity is the result of matter, hence the hypothesized "matter" that is otherwise undetectable by current instruments - but we do perceive it's gravitational effect!

Perhaps it will turn out that there isn't some kind of exotic matter out there producing all this gravity, and that our current understanding of "normal matter" is faulty, or that something completely different is going on. We will have to let science run it's course and see what it will turn out to be.

I, for one, don't know. Perhaps it is even unknowable (certainly, if something occurs outside of the boundaries of space and time of our universe, we can not gain empirical knowledge of it).

Some disagree - surely you've heard the recent conclusions of Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow's book 'The Grand Design' that "invoking God is not necessary to explain the origins of the universe, and that the Big Bang is a consequence of the laws of physics alone" (Wikipedia). I'm not knowledgeable about this, so I would not defend the view, but it is an interesting take nonetheless.

As an atheist, I am not required to be able to give answers to questions that have not been answered other than "goddidit". That's something you should keep in your mind. "I don't know" is a perfectly valid response, even though your answer would be "God".

Ah, I didn't look at the URL XD Oops.

You're welcome, thanks for the comment.

Preaching. Yeah, that will help.

Brilliant. I thought I knew 11, though I had 9 of those 11 correct. The ones I didn't know I guessed, and eventually scored only 10/20.