lol. is your "need" to believe so strong that you have to go to such lengths to rationalize it?
"the invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike"
How do you distinguish between the belief in God and the occult?
- Thread starter Brass
- Start date
lol. is your "need" to believe so strong that you have to go to such lengths to rationalize it?
"the invisible and the nonexistent look very much alike"
Yeah!!
Who's that idiot greek who thought up the idea of "atoms"? Moron couldn't even wait for the instruments to prove it.
Have you ever seen an atom??
Quote from MarketMasher:
Yeah!!
Who's that idiot greek who thought up the idea of "atoms"? Moron couldn't even wait for the instruments to prove it.
Have you ever seen an atom??
yes i have. now if we could only get a picture of a god doing something.
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.co...t-images-of-atoms-vibrating-in-a-molecule.php
http://www.physorg.com/news/2012-03-picture-atomic-nucleus-emerges.html
Nope, it's my need to not be as close minded as you obviously are. You sure have conviction for someone who knows almost nothing about how the universe works.
I fully accept the notion that our smartest scientists really only have a basic grasp on the complexities of life and the universe. IMO, only an idiot is ignorant enough to claim that he is certain a "god" of some sort doesn't exist. We aren't anywhere near that level of understanding.
do you really think open minded people fall back to the level of understanding that men had 2000 years ago before the advent of science?
why is your default position the same as men who thought thunder and lightening were gods speaking?
Sigh.....
Ok, I'll try to be a bit more direct......
Democritus thought up of the idea of atoms. 460 to 370 B.C. A little before those pictures could be taken.
Then there was Dumbocritus, who thumbed his nose at Democritus in 460 to 370 B.C. and said "Nyah Nyah - you can't show me an atom!! What a stupid idea, you moron!!" (In greek, of course...)
This is only an analogy.....
My default position isn't the same. I don't think thunder and lightening are gods speaking. Somewhere along the line a physical phenomenon was attributed to God but later it was demonstrated how it happens naturally in nature. So you are implying that because someone got it wrong in that instance, it must be impossible for a creator to exist.
Your theory is just as far fetched as the creationists' theory. Both rely on an insane number of assumptions that have not yet been substantiated. They will never be able to provide enough evidence for you to acknowledge the possibility of a creator. You will never be able to provide ANY evidence that one doesn't exist. The best you can hope for is to discredit a specific definition.
Perhaps because in the fullness of time, the early indoctrination doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny. Also, science has never dismissed a creator as "impossibe." It has merely thus far dismissed the need for a creator, rendering one irrelevant. There is a distinction. And, as others, I am inclined to apply Occam's razor accordingly.