Quote from Lucrum:
One is no more or less plausible than the other.
Well I'm with science then. So how is it our esteemed ET atheists are so cocksure of themselves when according to you the very science they claim backs them up admits it's a mystery?
Quote from omegapoint:
I think all roads lead to that its a mystery. Even religion has
some compartments set aside for mysteries like the mystery
of the trinity. When you invoke the term God, its the same as
saying you've reached the end to enquiry but questions don't
stop due to some self appointed authorities insistence. As a
matter of fact somehow you get more answers from questions, the journey IS the destination. Being cocksure is more of a personality thing than legitimately representing the vanguard of science
You think with the laws of physics (yes I know you don't like the fact), mathematics and gravity allowing for a universe from nothing on one hand , and a childlike imaginary invisible friend abstract concept in the form of a fanciful deistic creator with nothing in support but wishful thinking on the other, "One is no more or less plausible than the other." !? Good luck with that one.Quote from Lucrum:
One is no more or less plausible than the other.
Quote from Lucrum:
Well I'm with science then. So how is it our esteemed ET atheists are so cocksure of themselves when according to you the very science they claim backs them up admits it's a mystery?
no its not. exactly the opposite. that is why science uses peer review. what you may feel is evidence has to pass the critical review, based on testing, of people who disagree with you.Quote from Ricter:
The decision of what is "true evidence" is a necessarily arbitrary one--it's emotional, what "feels" right.
Quote from Free Thinker:
no its not. exactly the opposite. that is why science uses peer review. .
Quote from Free Thinker:
a thinking person would look at how both sides came to their conclusions. the religious believe their version because some superstitious sheep herder wrote it down in a so called holy book thousands of years ago. there is no evidence to support it.
the scientific verson comes to its conclusions based on hundreds of years of scientific observation and testing. are both ideas really equally valid?
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there always has been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'" - Isaac Asimov
Quote from Ricter:
Which tests that the methodology and conclusions are consistent with scientific validity, which is defined by people.
There is no force which commands that people accept the scientific worldview (and only that worldview); if there were we would not be having this argument. Thus, it is an entirely human, ie. arbitrary, decision.