Evolution is wack;God is the only way that makes sense! - Part 2

Quote Originally Posted by spidergoat View Post
All the other ones? Religion is a far from benign force. Faith itself is a damaging ideal, since it values belief without evidence. The side effects include global warming and Republican politicians.
Click to expand...
I think yo may be underestmating how much faith you have..
example:
How do you know that you will wake up in the morning? or do you lay there scared silly trying not to sleep at night for fear of not waking up.
How do you know to plan for tomorrow when in fact according to science tomorow may not happen [random existinction events]
If the universe was truly random then no Physical laws would exist. If it is not random then it must be what?
How much faith do you have in your own science as another example?


as an aside and a vehicle to opening some thoughts.
use PI as an example:
Now we know that the apparent infinite resoution of pi shows a series of non pattern forming digits.
agreed?
and we declare: pi does not create patterns in it's number sequence.

If those numbers were random - patterns must be able to form.
If those numbers are predetermined then it is a pretty impressive thing that no patterns form.

Now Pi is said not to form patterns yet if one thinks about it, PI ... IS the pattern.
For every time you calculate PI the same digits appear exactly the same always.

Now apply the same logic to the universe as being possibly evidence of an abstract notion of God....
it is in your face all the time...
 
Balerion said:
Yes it does matter. "God" has connotations, and it makes no sense to place that label on the universe itself.
Click to expand...
and those connotations are what you allow to be present. drop the connotations and work it out for yourself.....
the problem with any belief system is that it inhibits your abiity to see beyond that belief. Whether that be science or religion.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Now apply the same logic to the universe as being possibly evidence of an abstract notion of God....
it is in your face all the time...
Click to expand...

There you go again. You keep trying to sneak that in as if it's a legitimate statement, but it isn't. It's not the same. You have to first assume that it's evidence of a god.
 
Mazulu said:
I dunno about that. I still think that "God said, "Let there be light!"", sounds an awful lot like the big bang.

From another point of view, who the heck wants their religion to be entrenched in scientific evidence? Is science a religion? How boring! I want a religion that enriches our lives, enhances our culture, creates bonds between me and my fellow man (person). I want a religion that upholds a standard of ethics and morals (even if that standard has to evolve and improve). When I see something shocking and astonishing, I like to say, "Oh My God!!!!" I like the interaction with occult and paranormal phenomena; it makes life more enjoyable and more excititing.

I like the fact that quantum randomeness and quantum uncertainty are doorways into our universe that God, or some other power, might use to touch our lives. What is wrong with that?
Click to expand...
agrees:
Would you ever want science to describe something like this as a form of mathematics:
[video=youtube;S4kzGhDEURA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4kzGhDEURA[/video]
shessh even religion can't describe it....
 
Balerion said:
There you go again. You keep trying to sneak that in as if it's a legitimate statement, but it isn't. It's not the same. You have to first assume that it's evidence of a god.
Click to expand...
no the first thing to assume is the universe as a whole is in itself evidence.
the rest is up to you as to what label, ideology, science etc you wish to use.
 
Quantum Quack said:
no the first thing to assume is the universe as a whole is in itself evidence.
Click to expand...

Which is a false assumption. Think of the universe like a dead body. All the dead body is evidence of is death, just as the universe is only evidence of its own existence. To say that it is evidence of something other than that, you need evidence to connect it to that other thing. Like how a bullet hole in the forehead is evidence of a murder. Where's the evidence that allows you to say that the universe is evidence of anything other than itself? You need more than just "It exists."

the rest is up to you as to what label, ideology, science etc you wish to use.
Click to expand...

No, that's just ignorant speculation. You're accomplishing nothing by assuming the universe is evidence of a god or of anything else for which you can't connect it to. I could say it's evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be no closer to the truth than you are. Just leave it out.

and those connotations are what you allow to be present. drop the connotations and work it out for yourself.....
Click to expand...

No, that's not how it works. If I say God created the universe but I mean by that the universe came about by natural phenomenon I just so happen to call "God," then I'm only confusing the matter. Now imagine if I offer this as an alternative to a Christian, who argues that God created the universe, but means an anthropomorphic deity as described in the Bible. The conversation becomes absurd, because it boils down to "God created the universe," vs "No, God created the universe!" When you're talking to other people, if you're defining terms for yourself that don't match correct (or even popular) definitions, you're going to find a lot of people walking away from you totally confused. Opt for clarity. If you mean you think the universe came about naturally, without the aid of a deity, then don't call that natural process "God."

But this entire point is moot because I know you mean God in a literal sense. You've already given it attributes and characteristics and attempted to argue against me under the assumption that God thinks like we think. You don't mean this abstractly, you mean it very specifically.

the problem with any belief system is that it inhibits your abiity to see beyond that belief. Whether that be science or religion.
Click to expand...

Science isn't a belief system. Maybe that's why you get things like evolution so wrong--you appear to think that whatever you want to believe is true. Well, hate to break it to you, but...
 
Balerion said:
Which is a false assumption. Think of the universe like a dead body. All the dead body is evidence of is death, just as the universe is only evidence of its own existence. To say that it is evidence of something other than that, you need evidence to connect it to that other thing. Like how a bullet hole in the forehead is evidence of a murder. Where's the evidence that allows you to say that the universe is evidence of anything other than itself? You need more than just "It exists."
Click to expand...

You really need to define "death" and what is it?

To me the only difference between life and death from a universal perspective is the difference between self animated life [eg humans living], non-animated life [humans dead]

To me the universe is entirely a living entity that in the main appears to be non-animated depending on your view point.
Yep even that monitor you are looking at is a part of it... life... Death is only mans way of declaring his persona ego is no more. [an ego centrc statement]

No, that's just ignorant speculation. You're accomplishing nothing by assuming the universe is evidence of a god or of anything else for which you can't connect it to. I could say it's evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and be no closer to the truth than you are. Just leave it out.
Click to expand...
according to you maybe but then again..... who are you to say?

No, that's not how it works. If I say God created the universe but I mean by that the universe came about by natural phenomenon I just so happen to call "God," then I'm only confusing the matter. Now imagine if I offer this as an alternative to a Christian, who argues that God created the universe, but means an anthropomorphic deity as described in the Bible. The conversation becomes absurd, because it boils down to "God created the universe," vs "No, God created the universe!" When you're talking to other people, if you're defining terms for yourself that don't match correct (or even popular) definitions, you're going to find a lot of people walking away from you totally confused. Opt for clarity. If you mean you think the universe came about naturally, without the aid of a deity, then don't call that natural process "God."
Click to expand...
oh I see your point and stangely enough I agree with it... however it is only your connotations that is driving YOUR show and if someone else is confusing you then you might need to ask why you are getting confused not why they are confusing you.
This thread is about a pseudo Christain God being necessary for evolution to work and I agree that this is a potentially incorrect position to take. As both science and Christianity have both got God defined really badly.
And I stopped wanting to believe in Christainity the moment our primary school chaplain decided to make an unsuccessful pass at me under the guise of abuse counselling.

But this entire point is moot because I know you mean God in a literal sense. You've already given it attributes and characteristics and attempted to argue against me under the assumption that God thinks like we think. You don't mean this abstractly, you mean it very specifically.
Click to expand...
Oh no... if he exist he thinks in ways far superior to how you or I would think... way too clever and intelligent... and he could probably decide to be a "blow fly" on someones wall if he chose to as well...certainly making hamburgers for Hungry Jacks would be easy!!!

Science isn't a belief system. Maybe that's why you get things like evolution so wrong--you appear to think that whatever you want to believe is true. Well, hate to break it to you, but...
Click to expand...
and that is why you can't see past your noses.....of course it is a belief system... just like the belief that it isn't or it is...
even if you gain scientific knowledge first hand your belief about what you have learned is premised on what you have learned from other books, teachers and other second hand sources. Not knowledge just belief...
as philosophy will tell you knowledge [ truth] is unattainable...so all must be belief.
Critical thinking demands healthy skepticism and agnotism. Atheism is only a belief as well... to maintain a neutral position regardess of how compelling the evidence is allows you to go beyond as needed and not get stuck in some sort of self perpetuating dogma of your own creation in your head.
 
use PI as an example:
Now we know that the apparent infinite resolution of Pi shows a series of non pattern forming digits.
agreed?
and we declare: pi does not create patterns in it's number sequence.

If those numbers were random - patterns must be able to form.
If those numbers are predetermined then it is a pretty impressive thing that no patterns form.

Now Pi is said not to form patterns yet if one thinks about it, PI ... IS the pattern.
For every time you calculate PI the same digits appear exactly the same always.

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...


and again

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...

and again

3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679
8214808651328230664709384460955058223172535940812848111745028410270193852110555964462294895493038196
4428810975665933446128475648233786783165271201909145648566923460348610454326648213393607260249141273
724587006606315588174881520920962829254091715364367892590360011330530548820466521384146951941511609...

see... Pi IS the pattern


so for effectively an infinite number of events [ each digit could be considered as an event] they are all determined by PI from the beginning.
The events have already been determined no matter how many digits you wish to produce...

so Pi could be used as an analogy, representative of infinite, eternal and predetermined diversity all in the one little ratio...
the perfect "fully determined random number generator" [ not random at all of course ]
 
Quantum Quack said:
You really need to define "death" and what is it?

To me the only difference btwenen life and death from a universal perspective is the difference between self animated life [eg humans living], non-animated life [humans dead]

To me the universe is entirely a living entity that in the main appears to be non-animated depending on your view point.
Yep even that monitor you are looking at is a part of it... life... Death is only mans way of declaring his persona ego is no more.
Click to expand...

You're trying to derail this. I was making the analogy between two entities in an effort to show you that you are wrong about the universe being evidence of something in and of itself. I used a dead body because a dead body alone isn't evidence of suicide or homicide or accident, just as the universe alone isn't evidence of creation or happenstance or whatever. Do you understand now?

according to you maybe but then again..... who are you to say?
Click to expand...

It's not my rule, it's just the way it is. You can't say the universe's existence is evidence of something without being able to say what quality of the universe's existence points to whatever thing it is you're positing as its origin.

oh I see your point and stangely enough I agree with it... however it is only your connotations that is driving YOUR show and if someone else is confusing you then you might need to ask why you are getting confused not why they are confusing you.
Click to expand...

Clearly you don't see the point. If you and I are having a conversation, and you insist upon your own definitions, then our conversation will be unproductive.

This thread is about a pseudo Christain God being necessary for evolution to work and I agree that this is a potentially incorrect position to take. As both science and Christianity have both got God defined really badly.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't define God at all. There is nothing to suggest any gods exist, let alone a singular god as referenced in an old, dusty book, so how is science supposed to define it? As for Christians defining God, if you find it so lacking, why do you subscribe to it? A few posts ago you were yourself positing that a potential god must have those same characteristics.

And I stopped wanting to believe in Christainity the moment our primary school chaplain decided to make a pass at me under the guise of abuse counselling.
Click to expand...

Okay, you stopped wanting to. Does that mean you actually did?

Oh no... if he exist he thinks in ways far superior to how you or I would think... way too clever and intelligent... and he could probably decide to be a "blow fly" on someones wall if he chose to as well...certainly making hamburgers for Hungry Jacks would be easy!!!
Click to expand...

Again, you're anthropomorphizing. You have no idea what a god's nature would be, yet you assume it's some hyper-intelligence. Who says a creator has to be intelligent? For all you know, we could be the fever dream of an extradimensional jellyfish-thing.

and that is why you can't see past your noses.....of course it is a belief system... just like the belief that it isn't or it is...
even if you gain scientific knowledge first hand your belief about what you have learned is premised on what you have learned from other books, teachers and other second hand sources. Not knowledge just belief...
as philosophy will tell you knowledge [ truth] is unattainable...so all must be belief.
Click to expand...

That is utter nonsense. Science is the study of nature, not the belief in it. Of course, you must understand that by your own logic, if truth is unattainable, you'd have no way to know it, because if said thing were true, it would be beyond your ability to know.
 
Balerion said:
You're trying to derail this. I was making the analogy between two entities in an effort to show you that you are wrong about the universe being evidence of something in and of itself. I used a dead body because a dead body alone isn't evidence of suicide or homicide or accident, just as the universe alone isn't evidence of creation or happenstance or whatever. Do you understand now?
Click to expand...
nope I am afraid I dont see the relevance of suicide homicide nor happenstance as you called it... sorry but I don't. maybe try again...



It's not my rule, it's just the way it is. You can't say the universe's existence is evidence of something without being able to say what quality of the universe's existence points to whatever thing it is you're positing as its origin.
Click to expand...
I have and I will... [ if I read you correctly that is]



Clearly you don't see the point. If you and I are having a conversation, and you insist upon your own definitions, then our conversation will be unproductive.
Click to expand...
this whole discussion IS about definition...



Science doesn't define God at all. There is nothing to suggest any gods exist, let alone a singular god as referenced in an old, dusty book, so how is science supposed to define it? As for Christians defining God, if you find it so lacking, why do you subscribe to it? A few posts ago you were yourself positing that a potential god must have those same characteristics.
Click to expand...
of course it does. It's that thing that there is no evidence for....


Okay, you stopped wanting to. Does that mean you actually did?
Click to expand...
no it made me think that there had to be a better way....



Again, you're anthropomorphizing. You have no idea what a god's nature would be, yet you assume it's some hyper-intelligence. Who says a creator has to be intelligent? For all you know, we could be the fever dream of an extradimensional jellyfish-thing.
Click to expand...
tell me you are kidding? abstraction is what?



That is utter nonsense. Science is the study of nature, not the belief in it. Of course, you must understand that by your own logic, if truth is unattainable, you'd have no way to know it, because if said thing were true, it would be beyond your ability to know.
Click to expand...

absolutely! bingo! shazam! you have it in a nut shell! Well done my boy!!!!
 
@ balerion,
did you miss this:
Critical thinking demands healthy skepticism and agnotism. Atheism is only a belief as well... to maintain a neutral position regardess of how compelling the evidence is allows you to go beyond as needed and not get stuck in some sort of self perpetuating dogma of your own creation in your head.
Click to expand...
I and others I am sure are interested in your response
 
Quantum Quack said:
@ balerion,
did you miss this:

I and others I am sure are interested in your response
Click to expand...

I don't know what you mean by "agnotism." I've seen you use it before, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a word. Are you trying to say agnosticism? I guess I'm going to have to for the sake of this post.

I didn't want to break apart your post, but since its two sentences don't have anything to do with one another, I'll have to.

Critical thinking demands healthy skepticism and agnotism
Click to expand...

Incorrect. Agnosticism is the position that the validity of a claim is unknowable--ie it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God--not a prerequisite for critical thinking. For example, you are not an agnostic as it pertains to the claim that the earth orbits the sun. We can validate that claim, and so agnosticism in that case would be ridiculous.

Though you are right about skepticism. However, this is another case of you having your own definitions for terms, and there is no doubt in my mind that you define "skepticism" quite differently than I do.

to maintain a neutral position regardess of how compelling the evidence is allows you to go beyond as needed and not get stuck in some sort of self perpetuating dogma of your own creation in your head.
Click to expand...

But maintaining a neutral position in spite of evidence is getting stuck in some sort of self-perpetuating dogma of your own creation in your head. You've taken skepticism to mean "believe nothing," when in fact it simply means "believe nothing on faith." When there is ample evidence for something--or against something--then pretending that the evidence isn't indicative is stupid and wholly unproductive.
 
Balerion said:
I don't know what you mean by "agnotism." I've seen you use it before, but I'm pretty sure it isn't a word. Are you trying to say agnosticism? I guess I'm going to have to for the sake of this post.

I didn't want to break apart your post, but since its two sentences don't have anything to do with one another, I'll have to.
Click to expand...
yes I should have been more precise and included the word agnoticism as well...my mistake sorry.



Incorrect. Agnosticism is the position that the validity of a claim is unknowable--ie it is impossible to know whether or not there is a God--not a prerequisite for critical thinking. For example, you are not an agnostic as it pertains to the claim that the earth orbits the sun. We can validate that claim, and so agnosticism in that case would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Firtsly, there are no right or wrongs, only better and better again... [ a self contradiction yes?]

Agnoticism can be used either specifically or generally as far as I know. To be agnostic in the context of this discussion is to neither believe nor disbeleive. To With hold judgement. To give your self the space and time to form a "better" opinion. An opinion that does not destroy an agnostic position. The belief ultimately derived is maintained under the constant scrutiny of self skepticism [ not to be confused with self doubt ]
Often agnotism is the delineation between belief vs knowledge and as knowledge according to mainstream philosophy is unattainable and belief held too strongly can be felt to be true and not known to be true [delusion] a state of agnoticism is the only position if critical thinking is sort or wished to be available.



But maintaining a neutral position in spite of evidence is getting stuck in some sort of self-perpetuating dogma of your own creation in your head. You've taken skepticism to mean "believe nothing," when in fact it simply means "believe nothing on faith." When there is ample evidence for something--or against something--then pretending that the evidence isn't indicative is stupid and wholly unproductive.
Click to expand...
the whole point of being skeptical of you own perspective and agnostic towards belief is to eventually allow belief that is not a dogma, that is not a compulsion, that is not psychotic. A belief that is more loosley held so that future information is possible to be absorbed and change is available if the thinking requires it.[ flexibility, adaptability, learning etc]
To believe in anything too strongly blocks growth and critical thinking...and can lead to psychosis in extreme cases.
 
It also allows a person to think abstractly, to run virtual simulation to check all alternatives. to brainstorm a problem effectively.


Like for example:

I don't believe in the existance of a photon and I have good reason not to.

What is your reaction?
 
Quantum Quack said:
nope I am afraid I dont see the relevance of suicide homicide nor happenstance as you called it... sorry but I don't. maybe try again...
Click to expand...

You realize you're saying you don't understand how analogy works, right?

I have and I will... [ if I read you correctly that is]
Click to expand...

Yes, you have, and you clearly will, but it means you won't have a meaningful discussion on the subject.

this whole discussion IS about definition...
Click to expand...

It isn't, but even if it were, you still have to use words to make those arguments, and if you're going to simply change definitions to suit your own purposes, then you're just muddying matters. Though it really doesn't matter here, because it doesn't seem to be a conscious effort on your part, so much as it is you're just misusing words.

of course it does. It's that thing that there is no evidence for....
Click to expand...

That's not a definition at all, and certainly not science's definition. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural.

no it made me think that there had to be a better way....
Click to expand...


tell me you are kidding? abstraction is what?
Click to expand...

You've mentioned this "abstraction" before, but you've also characterized God very specifically, which is the opposite of abstraction.


absolutely! bingo! shazam! you have it in a nut shell! Well done my boy!!!!
Click to expand...

I would re-read that, if I were you. Clearly you didn't understand what it was I implied.

yes I should have been more precise and included the word agnoticism as well...my mistake sorry.

No, not "as well." Agnotism is not a word. Agnotism is you not knowing how to spell "agnosticism."

Firtsly, there are no right or wrongs, only better and better again... [ a self contradiction yes?]
Click to expand...

Completely nonsense.

Agnoticism can be used either specifically or generally as far as I know. To be agnostic in the context of this discussion is to neither believe nor disbeleive.
Click to expand...

Agnosticism is more than that, but okay, supposing that's what you meant by it, it's no better than the actual definition. What you advocate here is to take no position on a matter even in spite of the evidence. That's simply absurd.

To With hold judgement. To give your self the space and time to form a "better" opinion. An opinion that does not destroy an agnostic position. The belief ultimately derived is maintained under the constant scrutiny of self skepticism [ not to be confused with self doubt ]
Click to expand...

You can't form a "better" agnostic position. That's like saying your t-shirt size is extra medium. Either you know, or you don't know, and forming an opinion other than "I don't know" means you're no longer an agnostic on the matter.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know," but to say it when the evidence to the contrary is clear amounts to denial.

Often agnotism is the delineation between belief vs knowledge and as knowledge according to mainstream philosophy is unattainable and belief held too strongly can be felt to be true and not known to be true [delusion] a state of agnoticism is the only position if critical thinking is sort or wished to be available.
Click to expand...

I don't know of any mainstream philosophy that suggests knowledge is unattainable. But even if there was one, we have proof that such a notion is completely false. The internet exists because of knowledge, medicine works because of knowledge, skyscrapers stand up because of knowledge.

Agnosticism is a theological concept, for what it's worth. It sounds like you've maybe confused the argument for agnosticism in that sense (it's unwise to say anything other than "I don't know if there's a God" because knowledge of God's existence in unattainable) for an argument regarding philosophy and science? It sure sounds that way.

the whole point of being skeptical of you own perspective and agnostic towards belief is to eventually allow belief that is not a dogma, that is not a compulsion, that is not psychotic. A belief that is more loosley held so that future information is possible to be absorbed and change is available if the thinking requires it.[ flexibility, adaptability, learning etc]
To believe in anything too strongly blocks growth and critical thinking...and can lead to psychosis in extreme cases.
Click to expand...

That's simply untrue. The strength of your belief should directly relate the strength of the evidence. For example, I believe strongly in evolution, because the evidence for it is overwhelming. If I believed strongly in Christianity, however, I would be doing so in spite of plenty of evidence against its validity. You see the difference? There's nothing dogmatic about scientific theory. And even if people do get protective of ideas, the science always wins out. Einstein couldn't quite accept quantum mechanics, yet here we are all these decades later marveling at its mysteries. Why? Because the science wins out. If Einstein were instead a theologian, and said he couldn't quite accept the idea of Jesus having brown hair, there would doubtless be a movement called the Blondites going door-to-door to spread the word of the towheaded Christ. Again, see the difference?

Accepting what the evidence suggests doesn't weaken our integrity. Quite the opposite. This is why science is so awesome.

True skepticism is not believing anything without evidence. Denying things in spite of evidence is simply another faith-based position.
Click to expand...
 
Balerion said:
You realize you're saying you don't understand how analogy works, right?



Yes, you have, and you clearly will, but it means you won't have a meaningful discussion on the subject.



It isn't, but even if it were, you still have to use words to make those arguments, and if you're going to simply change definitions to suit your own purposes, then you're just muddying matters. Though it really doesn't matter here, because it doesn't seem to be a conscious effort on your part, so much as it is you're just misusing words.



That's not a definition at all, and certainly not science's definition. Science doesn't deal with the supernatural.






You've mentioned this "abstraction" before, but you've also characterized God very specifically, which is the opposite of abstraction.




I would re-read that, if I were you. Clearly you didn't understand what it was I implied.

yes I should have been more precise and included the word agnoticism as well...my mistake sorry.

No, not "as well." Agnotism is not a word. Agnotism is you not knowing how to spell "agnosticism."



Completely nonsense.



Agnosticism is more than that, but okay, supposing that's what you meant by it, it's no better than the actual definition. What you advocate here is to take no position on a matter even in spite of the evidence. That's simply absurd.



You can't form a "better" agnostic position. That's like saying your t-shirt size is extra medium. Either you know, or you don't know, and forming an opinion other than "I don't know" means you're no longer an agnostic on the matter.

There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know," but to say it when the evidence to the contrary is clear amounts to denial.



I don't know of any mainstream philosophy that suggests knowledge is unattainable. But even if there was one, we have proof that such a notion is completely false. The internet exists because of knowledge, medicine works because of knowledge, skyscrapers stand up because of knowledge.

Agnosticism is a theological concept, for what it's worth. It sounds like you've maybe confused the argument for agnosticism in that sense (it's unwise to say anything other than "I don't know if there's a God" because knowledge of God's existence in unattainable) for an argument regarding philosophy and science? It sure sounds that way.



That's simply untrue. The strength of your belief should directly relate the strength of the evidence. For example, I believe strongly in evolution, because the evidence for it is overwhelming. If I believed strongly in Christianity, however, I would be doing so in spite of plenty of evidence against its validity. You see the difference? There's nothing dogmatic about scientific theory. And even if people do get protective of ideas, the science always wins out. Einstein couldn't quite accept quantum mechanics, yet here we are all these decades later marveling at its mysteries. Why? Because the science wins out. If Einstein were instead a theologian, and said he couldn't quite accept the idea of Jesus having brown hair, there would doubtless be a movement called the Blondites going door-to-door to spread the word of the towheaded Christ. Again, see the difference?

Accepting what the evidence suggests doesn't weaken our integrity. Quite the opposite. This is why science is so awesome.

True skepticism is not believing anything without evidence. Denying things in spite of evidence is simply another faith-based position.
Click to expand...
complete nonsense ..all of it... start again or don't bother
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top