> > I find it curious that athiests complain about
> > scripture because it presumes the existence of God, and then presume
> > the lack of existence on the grounds that proof is not available one
> > way or the other.
I'm not sure who said the above - Will Dwinnell? - but whoever it was
might do well to read William of Occam, or read about Occam's Razor,
one of the basic principles of scientific investigation.
Loosely summarized: lacking of evidence for the existence of
an object, one should presume that that object does not exist.
Do not allow thought objects to proliferate without cause.
"Presuming lack of existence on the grounds that proof is not available
one way or the other" is consistent with this basic principle of scientific