Hammerhead Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 And stop asserting science is based on faith...because it is not. Faith is believing without evidence. Which is the exact opposite of how science works. There are some things science tries to explain but doesn't know for sure, and maybe never will. And it flat out says that "I don't know" is a perfectly fine answer. But positing that because science doesn't know, then obviously god is the answer, is an absurd conclusion to jump to. Because (like I've already stated earlier) then the same questions can be asked about your god. How did he come into existence? Where was his beginning? Who created him? And round and round we go. If you can't accept theories based on the naturalistic particle/cosmological sciences...the same science you do acknowledge and use every single day in your life....how do you readily accept magic? Especially when there is absolutely no evidence of magic...ever! Winner, winner, chicken dinner. The biggest difference between science and religion is that science says, "I believe this is true, and I intend to prove it either true or false", while religion says, "I have faith that this is true" and leaves it at that. Link to comment
Sub-Husker Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 The biggest difference between science and religion is that science says, "I believe this is true, and I intend to prove it either true or false", while religion says, "I have faith that this is true" and leaves it at that. Religion is like having a national championship with no post season, where science would award it after a playoff. Link to comment
Recommended Posts