Do you know that there's no Loch Ness monster? No, not for certain. However, given the anthropological reasons for there being a belief in the Loch Ness monster, the likelihood that there actually is one, and the lack of biological evidence for such, it is extremely unlikely that there is one. It's extremely unlikely that I've got 28 toes. ...and whilst on the internet, you can't disprove that. Using the inability to disprove something as the reason for giving the notion credence is illogical.
Why don't we all agree that nobody knows? Then some of us can believe that it is down to some magical/superior being in the sky and some of us can believe it is down to some material magically appearing in the sky and magically exploding and magically making all these things.
I'm not trying to get into a big argument over it but here's one for those who are pretty much certain - why are some scientists practicing Christians, Jews or Muslims?
I don't think anyone was disagreeing that nobody knows for certain. I don't know for certain that there's no Santa. That is not reason enough for me to live my life by rules set out by Santa Worshippers.
Because, science DOESN'T disprove religion. It's not TRYING to disprove religion. The whole idea of Religion v Science is a load of bollocks.
I would say, trying to prove how the Earth/Universe began is a bit different from getting a few speedboats with a few radars/sonars to see if there is a big fish in a loch.
Name one who doesn't have the conditioned religion of their ubringing. Robert Winston is a practising Jew because he was brought up one and can't reconcile any further knowledge he has with what he believes. If you find me one who was brought up without a belief structure and got one or converted to another religion, I'll be impressed.
Are you wishing to move away from the logical arguments about this and move onto the logistical and circumstancial of environment? Big man cannot exist in sky. QED
It's a common view that God is above us looking down but in reality he is everywhere And you ****s can't prove anything different.
So you are putting blind faith in things for which no explanation has been offered... But criticise others for doing the same. Gotcha
Not really, just on scale though, because the radars/sonars are looking for a physical thing,which like I said is a lot different from working out where the material came from for the big bang or if a superior being exists. Surely even you can work that out?
You have to understand why ST has such an aversion to the belief in and believers in God... God hates ***s
Charles Darwin struggled greatly with his belief as a result of his discoveries. He has been cited on here as a victory of science over faith, yet he himself managed to retain a belief.
Most scientists (apart from the Creationist and they're mental) aren't looking for a "superior being" (what a horrible thought). They are looking for physical things* to explain the beginning of the big bang. I wont patronise you by asking "surely even you can work that out?" * In a relative sense, of course.
Darwin remained close friends with the vicar of Downe, John Innes, and continued to play a leading part in the parish work of the church, but from around 1849 would go for a walk on Sundays while his family attended church. He considered it "absurd to doubt that a man might be an ardent theist and an evolutionist" and, though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he wrote that "I have never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. – I think that generally ... an agnostic would be the most correct description of my state of mind." The "Lady Hope Story", published in 1915, claimed that Darwin had reverted to Christianity on his sickbed. The claims were repudiated by Darwin's children and have been dismissed as false by historians. This was a man indoctrinated in religion yet became an agnostic through his scientific discoveries at a time when such views were very much the minority. And remember, this was a man who was once an Anglican clergyman.
