Your question suggests the possibility that God does not include this forum in his plan because he is unwilling or unable.
To the religious, it is blasphemy to suggest that any act of man can exclude the oversight of God and his all-encompassing plan and it is blasphemy to declare that there is no God.
Therefore, by asking a question, you have alienated yourself from the religious and, if they are right, God.
Therefore, by asking a question, you have classified yourself among those that deny God.
Therefore, you have already answered your own question in the negative.
So since it is your opinion that there is no God on sciforums, is it your opinion that there is no God or that God exists but is weaker than the science discussion on this forum?
Classification of your exact choice of blasphemy will help us figure out if your model of God's alleged inability to function on sciforums has empirical support.
Shorter: Scientists use the phrase "arguing like a lawyer" as a pejorative because lawyers build strong-sounding cases by substituting things that sound good, like analogies, for logic. That doesn't mean the "lawyer" is wrong, but that he has reached a conclusion on evidence that might not motivate a person governed only by logic to reach without more evidence. And it's fun.
Shorter still: As a rule of thumb, most papers which have yes-no questions in the title are answered in the body of the paper in the negative.