Hello John, I found your responses to doctor Lewis's post somewhat ironic given how well they actually validate the author's point. I also took the doctor's advice and gave your responses due consideration before replying. So the only thing I'd like to point out and emphasise is that Science is under no obligation to either prove or disprove the existence of god, or gods, whether they be God, Allah, Vishnu, Shiva, Wotan, Ra, or Jehova since all of these are framed as unfalsifiable hypotheses of nature. In other words they are always imagined by believers in such a way that no empirical test could ever even in principal be performed that would exclude their possible existence, because, after all, any negative reault could simply reflect they way 'God' finally meant the world to work. In fact, science is under no obligation to deal with ANY sort of unfalsifiable hypothesis, any what you are essentially doing here is called reversing the burden of proof.

I think I'm rather in agreement with doctor Lewis here, and I'd say that while you have every right to believe in your God and every right to hold on to your faith (and I certainly have no pretense that this should be otherwise), it's just that the way you (and believers in the divine in general) frame the notion of 'God' simply make it scientifically...uninteresting.