[js1138]

But how do you expect science to show that the universe either does or does not require a God?

It all began with that atheist Newton and his laws of motion, which denied the God keep pushing the arrow continuously in flight.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but asserting that things behave in consistent ways over time does not deny God, even though it sometimes denies the need to assume miracles in everyday life.

If you assume miracle as the default explanation for an unknown phenomena, you cannot do science, because science has the opposite default assumption.

[js1138]

which denied the God keep pushing the arrow continuously in flight.
=
which denied the need for God to keep pushing the arrow continuously in flight.

[grey_whiskers]

It all began with that atheist Newton and his laws of motion, which denied the God keep pushing the arrow continuously in flight.

I shouldn't have to point this out, but asserting that things behave in consistent ways over time does not deny God, even though it sometimes denies the need to assume miracles in everyday life.

One often gets into troubles when trying to keep an over-simplified model in the face on increasingly detailed evidence. Try accounting for more than the simplest atomic spectra (Rydberg transitions & the like) using a Bohr / Rutherford type atom. Very messy, very quickly.

If you assume miracle as the default explanation for an unknown phenomena, you cannot do science, because science has the opposite default assumption.

If you ever run into C.S. Lewis' The Discarded Image let me know...