Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor S
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on that one:
The leading theory on the origins of life remains that God created life. There is no proof that life was created otherwise, and any evidence to the contrary is circumstantial and even silly. There is more hard science to support the God theory (probabilities of life orighinating by accident making it a near impossibility). So if we are going to treat leading and established theories as facts to be disproven, and God has been the leading theory for thousands of years, that puts the burden of proof on those attempting to disprove God's existence.
But more importantly, Vamp, your comments show a big misunderstanding of religion and what it means to be religious. To prove God's existence would destroy him.
|
More importantly, you're comments show a big misunderstanding of what a
scientific theory is. You sound like the people who say, "Oh evolution! It's only a theory." Religion is not a theory, and neither is god.
Where are your statistics coming from that make the existence of an all powerful being more probable than all life being created from accident? I find the latter to be more likely - that a group of atoms combined in just the right way to form a single cell organism. At least that is explainable. The existence of a god is not explainable.
If I were to say to you, "There is a purple furred bunny with draconic wings and a lions head somewhere in the world today", then would you be obligated to believe that, just because you don't have evidence to disprove me?
I don't see how my statements lead you to believe I don't know anything about religion or religious people. I wasn't born atheist, but I have become a person of reason and fact. I understand that religion and religious people require a certain amount of spirituality - but since I do not believe in spirituality, I cannot use those terms to express my argument.
You're trying to put me into a catch 22 - I can't use reason to argue my point because it is against the nature of religion, but I can't use religion to argue my point because it contradicts my point.