Religion, Darwinism, Creationism and cu20052003ism

[temptrader]

In post number 87 you wrote.........


I was merely pointing out that your assertion that because Darwin knew that something written in this famous religious text is wrong then everything in the text was rubbish is simply not correct.

I did specifically mention the bible but the point is valid regardless of the religious text in question.

As for science, I never suggested it was perfect and I never suggested it needed to be. I was merely pointing out that taking your assertion that everything in a famous religious text is proven to be rubbish if anything at all in the text is wrong would be no different to saying everything about science is wrong if anything science has ever claimed ends up being wrong.

Cheers,
PKFFW

And now we are being pedantic are we? Maybe I made an off hand statement too? Religious text have very good sound morals in them, but their basis is dubious. "all a load of rubbish" was in reference to Darwin's abandoning of what he use to view the religious text in question. But again, if you want to be pedantic . . .

Oh, and by the way, you and Firewalker99 would make a great couple.:cheesy: Just my personal view, and that point was to highlight the absurdity of putting forward thoughts, explanations, assumptions about things that are anomalies. So, do you believe that there are pink elephants in your fridge? If so, do you think they might satisfy the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in reverse: they are always around when no one is looking (forcing the measurement)?

At present the idea of God is unfalsifiable and as such has no place in a scientific theory or discussion. Who is to say this will remain the case forever?

And this is why it would be great to have a film about two individuals: AgentZ86 can play the deluded individual, and someone else plays God. All the film is about is the God trying to convince the human that he really is the God, but the human never accepts because he "believes" in something else, no matter what arguments to the contrary, or any miracles worked. And it will be filled with psychological/philosophical discourse and arguments between the two that never get anywhere. This film would be like a religious version of "Lord of the Flies".

The point I'm trying to make is that even if there were a God, he could never ultimately prove to you that he is God, because human beings don't work that way, it's not how we are psychologically. He could raise the dead, make someone immortal etc. . . and some people still won't believe, they will come up with different reasons and say: "yes, yes, you can do all that, it just means you are capable of those feats, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are God" etc. . . .

My view is that the concept of a God is a psychological issue. It's not really a scientific issue unless you want to study its sociological implications. Maybe, as mentioned before and popularly quoted, it's deep rooted with the fear of death, or not knowing about certain things in life that science cannot explain, or maybe it's just a way of humans to impose order in themselves etc. . . . we are so busy caring about what we WANT rather than questioning ourselves why we WANT them, and what leads us to WANT them, and whether this WANT is a logical basis for what we want to be true.

 

[PKFFW]

And now we are being pedantic are we? Maybe I made an off hand statement too? Religious text have very good sound morals in them, but their basis is dubious. "all a load of rubbish" was in reference to Darwin's abandoning of what he use to view the religious text in question. But again, if you want to be pedantic . . .

Is making an offhand illogical statement anything like arguing from the emotions? Both serve no useful purpose.

Oh, and by the way, you and Firewalker99 would make a great couple.:cheesy: Just my personal view, and that point was to highlight the absurdity of putting forward thoughts, explanations, assumptions about things that are anomalies.

Again I would suggest you work out your own deep seated questions about your own sexual preferences. When you do you may be more at peace with yourself and not feel the need to attack someone you disgree with on a personal level but will feel confident to argue your case on its merits alone.

So, do you believe that there are pink elephants in your fridge? If so, do you think they might satisfy the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics in reverse: they are always around when no one is looking (forcing the measurement)?

What I believe about pink elephants is irrelevant to the discussion. Just as I have freely admitted what one believes about God is irrelevant to a scientific discussion.

And this is why it would be great to have a film about two individuals: AgentZ86 can play the deluded individual, and someone else plays God. All the film is about is the God trying to convince the human that he really is the God, but the human never accepts because he "believes" in something else, no matter what arguments to the contrary, or any miracles worked. And it will be filled with psychological/philosophical discourse and arguments between the two that never get anywhere. This film would be like a religious version of "Lord of the Flies".

The point I'm trying to make is that even if there were a God, he could never ultimately prove to you that he is God, because human beings don't work that way, it's not how we are psychologically. He could raise the dead, make someone immortal etc. . . and some people still won't believe, they will come up with different reasons and say: "yes, yes, you can do all that, it just means you are capable of those feats, it doesn't necessarily follow that you are God" etc. . . .

You seem to be describing yourself and most any other scientist here.

If God were to stand in front of you and perform every miracle you asked you would simply take the stance that at present science can not explain how these miracles are being done but there is still no evidence this person was god.

So how is it any different?

My view is that the concept of a God is a psychological issue. It's not really a scientific issue unless you want to study its sociological implications. Maybe, as mentioned before and popularly quoted, it's deep rooted with the fear of death, or not knowing about certain things in life that science cannot explain, or maybe it's just a way of humans to impose order in themselves etc. . . . we are so busy caring about what we WANT rather than questioning ourselves why we WANT them, and what leads us to WANT them, and whether this WANT is a logical basis for what we want to be true.

I agree that at present God is more of a psychological or emotional or whatever issue and not really a scientific issue. Nuclear fusion was not a scientific issue until we found out about atoms at the very least. Electric light bulbs were not a scientific issue until we found out about electricity.

Any scientist will tell you there is far more about the universe and all it contains that we don't know than there is stuff we do know. So what might come up in the future that suddenly enhances our knowledge and makes God a scientific issue? Maybe nothing. Maybe God is total myth. Then again, maybe something.

From a scientific view point it makes perfect sense to take God completely out of the equation. There is no verifiable evidence of God's existence and as such invoking God to define or rationalise something makes no scientific sense.

My point is that this alone does not constitute proof God does not exist. As such it is just as unsupported by evidence to claim that God is a delusion or myth.

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[dick_dastardly]

>
>
>
>
>
>Sub I_DONT_WANT_TO_DIE( )
>
>Open "Mind", For Input as #1
>
>Do Until afterlife = TRUE
>
>Do Until theory_of_evolution = FALSE And atheist = fed_up
>Call PICK_HOLES_IN_THEORY_OF_EVOLUTION( )
>Loop
>
>If theory_of_evolution = FALSE Then
> creation = TRUE
> End If
>
>If creation = TRUE Then
> god = TRUE
> End If
>
>If god = TRUE Then
> heaven = TRUE
> End if
>
>If heaven = TRUE Then
> afterlife = TRUE
> End If
>
>Loop
>
>If afterlife = TRUE Then
> im_gonna_die = FALSE
> End If
>
>Close Mind : Rem ( panic over )
>
>End Sub
>
>
>
>
>
>dd
>
>
>
>
>

 

[new_trader]

Yes I am well aware of Occam's razor. It is a brilliant construct that aids in the logical reasoning of a problem. That is all it is though, and idea. It is not a proof of anything. It is a tool that is useful when it comes to nutting out the solution.

Do you see or do you not see?

I'm not saying that God definitely started everything up. I'm not saying it is scientifically plausible to use God in the reasoning and proof of any problem. I totally agree with you and temptrader that to invoke God in some science problem in order to fill in the blanks would get you laughed out of any reputable scientific forum.

What I am saying is that at present we simply do not know if God exists or not. So from a scientific viewpoint using the principle of Occam's razor is well and good. However, to assert that God is a delusion is just as illogical and unsupported by fact as claiming that God is a proven verifiable entity. The only scientific viewpoint at present would be to claim that the existence of God is currently unsupported by any evidence and as such it is inconsistent with the scientific method to invoke his presence to fill in the blanks.

There was a time when the scientists of the day believed the entire universe was made up of the four elements. Earth, Air, Fire and Water. If anyone had suggested that these little things called atoms were actually the building blocks of matter they would have no doubt been called delusional too. As science progressed and new techniques were found to investigate the world we see that atoms are indeed the building blocks.(not counting those things smaller than atoms for the sake of simplicity).

At present the idea of God is unfalsifiable and as such has no place in a scientific theory or discussion. Who is to say this will remain the case forever?

Cheers,
PKFFW

"aids in the logical reasoning of a problem"

Well why don't you try using it

You just don't get it do you? The problem is that religion came first do you see or do you not see?

You only know about the possibility of a God because of what went on 1000's of years ago when there was very little scientific understanding, so everything was explained through theology and has been passed on from generation to generation.

Why don't you think that we all live inside a Matrix Style computer simulated world which is maintened by intelligent machines? I'll tell you why, because the matrix was released in 1999 and not 1999BC. Do you see? We didn't have an inquisition to persecute those who disagreed with this doctrine. Do you see?

Do you have tiny pink elephants in your fridge? How can you prove you dont? Why aren't pink elephants responsible for the big bang or evolution?

Theological, Metaphysical, and Positive States


3 In the Theological state, the human mind directs its researches mainly towards the inner nature of beings, and towards the first and final causes of all the phenomena which it observes—in a word, towards absolute knowledge. It therefore represents these phenomena as being produced by the direct and continuous action of more or less numerous supernatural agents, whose arbitrary intervention explains all the apparent anomalies of the universe.

In the Metaphysical state, which is in reality only a simple general modification of the first state, the supernatural agents are replaced by abstract forces, real entities or personified abstractions, inherent in the different beings of the world. These entities are looked upon as capable of giving rise by themselves to all the phenomena observed, each phenomenon being explained by assigning it to its corresponding entity.

Finally, in the positive state, the human mind, recognizing the impossibility of obtaining absolute truth, gives up the search after the origin and destination of the universe and a knowledge of the final causes of phenomena. It only endeavors now to discover, by a well-combined use of reasoning and observation, the actual laws of phenomena—that is to say, their invariable relations of succession and likeness. The explanation of facts, thus reduced to its real terms, consists henceforth only in the connection established between different particular phenomena and some general facts, the number of which the progress of science tends more and more to diminish.

 

[temptrader]

Problem with your question is that it is shaped by your perception of existence as my anology about earth being flat is shaped by my level of daily experience. Forgive me once again but I was simply trying to make a laymans point of view. Perhaps the view of the masses when they embrace God and faith.

Oh for crying out loud . . . . :cheesy:

Look, let me put it this way: if an alien race evolved on another planet somewhere in the universe and they got to the stage where they needed to count, what do you think they would do? They would have to invent a number system, and this number system would require an existence of "zero" (deducible or as a consequence from addition/subtraction laws), although they might not call it that. Going further along the lines they would have to invent multiplication/division etc. . . and so on. And they would probably stumble into the primes as well. That's what I meant. Oh, and the primes are a strange bunch, because regardless of number system used by the aliens, the primes still stay the same, they are number base invariant.

You miss my point in that zero does not exist yet you label it up and find a use for it to the point that you dismiss all analysis as beyond doubt zero exists by these wordy references above. I may be being devils advocate but can you not see parallels between zero and God?

You pick on zero, why not the number "1"? It's the multiplicative identity. It is also the additive generator for the positive integers (and the negative integers if subtraction is allowed). Only one number, in the number system we use in everyday life, can qualify for this job, so does that mean because it exists it's somehow miraculously a hint of a creator that made it this way?

By what you are saying it follows no numbers really "exist", and for that I agree. They are just logic constructs so humans can count and calculate and they are for that purpose only. In the same light computer don't actually "calculate" at all, that may sound contrary to what you know but I assure it's the truth. What they do is string manipulation - think about it! (and no, I have not time to go further into this).

I told you why the concept of a zero needs to be in the number system, but why should its occurrence/discovery necessitate the respond: "this number makes the whole system work, therefore some God must be behind this?" Wouldn't it be just as valid to say: "isn't it amazing we can make it work?" and stop there?

I believe land owns us and that we don't own the land (Red Indian proverb I think).

My question to you is who created you and your parents and their parents. The explanation that we have all evolved by some spark of light energy source or light particle, because planet Earth billions of years ago was suitable for the creation of life is about as far away as system of arithmetic as a consequence of other accept modified axioms. It may well be true but it's a million light years away as to be insignificant to my existence and beliefs. It also begs the question why we can't create a single cell from nothing with all our know how and technology?

But can't you see that's the human condition? There are things we are never, ever going to know in OUR lifetimes. That's it, nothing more to it than that. Why should the response be to dream up reasons? Wouldn't it be just as logical to assume that there are NO reasons?

 

[Atilla]

Oh for crying out loud . . . . :cheesy:

Look, let me put it this way: if an alien race evolved on another planet somewhere in the universe and they got to the stage where they needed to count, what do you think they would do? They would have to invent a number system, and this number system would require an existence of "zero" (deducible or as a consequence from addition/subtraction laws), although they might not call it that. Going further along the lines they would have to invent multiplication/division etc. . . and so on. And they would probably stumble into the primes as well. That's what I meant. Oh, and the primes are a strange bunch, because regardless of number system used by the aliens, the primes still stay the same, they are number base invariant.

I dunno about that. One alien film I saw used binary. Zero takes on a whole new meaning. Have you considered aliens using HEX?


You pick on zero, why not the number "1"? It's the multiplicative identity. It is also the additive generator for the positive integers (and the negative integers if subtraction is allowed). Only one number, in the number system we use in everyday life, can qualify for this job, so does that mean because it exists it's somehow miraculously a hint of a creator that made it this way? Not sure what you mean here? My analogy was that zero doesn't exist yet you are quite happy to believe in it's existence because it is so useful for your purpose.

By what you are saying it follows no numbers really "exist", and for that I agree. Didn't say that at all. Just zero. Give anything a name and it becomes real. eg: Daleks and Cybermen. They are just logic constructs so humans can count and calculate and they are for that purpose only. In the same light computer don't actually "calculate" at all, that may sound contrary to what you know but I assure it's the truth. What they do is string manipulation - think about it! (and no, I have not time to go further into this). Not really. Computers are merely billions of transistors that switch on/off - true/false - 010101 - in making decisions. You can program them to carry out complex string manipulation. Even language interpretes are available on babblefish now days.

I told you why the concept of a zero needs to be in the number system, but why should its occurrence/discovery necessitate the respond: "this number makes the whole system work, therefore some God must be behind this?" Wouldn't it be just as valid to say: "isn't it amazing we can make it work?" and stop there?

You are misquoting me again . I said it's useful in filling in the blanks. What we don't know it explains reasonably well. No more than anyones black whole theory based on millions/billions of light years away.


But can't you see that's the human condition? There are things we are never, ever going to know in OUR lifetimes. That's it, nothing more to it than that. Why should the response be to dream up reasons? Wouldn't it be just as logical to assume that there are NO reasons?

Assuming there are no reasons leave me feeling deflated.

Prefer to continue the quest.

 

[JTrader]

Aye bugg&r me. Lifes a bitch, then you die.

...Or as one of my old pals used to say - lifes a bitch, then you marry one, then you die.

 

[Atilla]

Aye bugg&r me. Lifes a bitch, then you die.

...Or as one of my old pals used to say - lifes a bitch, then you marry one, then you die.

No dude, lifes a beach and you should learn to swim...

 

[JTrader]

No dude, lifes a beach and you should learn to swim...

Beaches, mountains, lakes, rivers & forests - my favourite places and all good for the soul. If there is a god - it is in the natural world that he gets in touch with me..

 

[Jaydee]

If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him. - Voltaire

 

[JTrader]

Wild animals, plants trees etc. i believe god the creator as a force/energy can be seen in them. People are a bit different - some are good, some show traits of lucipher.



Unfortunately i hit a rabbit in my car a few months back. It was at night & it just ran out in front from the hedge. I had no time to stop as it was under the car & the back wheel got it. Very sad. Actually i did slow down, and the slowing down might have ensured my back wheels got it...

I thought quickly to reverse and see if it was dead, had gotten away etc. and it looked to be still alive. It made a few twitches with its back legs & head, then suddenly it stopped moving. Very moving to witness.




But for me, you don't need to go far to be inspired & rejuvinated by the natural world. In local woods if you're lucky you might see a deer, badger, Kestrel, peregrin falcon, rooks, (definately) squirrels etc.
At the beach, energy/noise produced by waves also very refreshing. Wind, rain etc.

 

[yacarob1]

If there were no God, it would be necessary to invent him. - Voltaire

Bit deep for an electrician isn't it ?

 

[gamma]

Bit deep for an electrician isn't it ?

Brilliant!!
You know if trading does not work out, you could probably get a job as a stand up comic.

 

[yacarob1]

Well, unfortunately trading has worked out quite nicely so I will have to give comedy a miss for now.

But T2W does offer rather a nice opportunity to try out comic quips doesn't it ?

 

[Jaydee]

Bit deep for an electrician isn't it ?

 

[gamma]

Yes that's whats good about T2W there is a lot of interaction to pass the time, comes in very useful if you are a position trader.

 

[cofton]

Dawkins does his research and analyses the facts and the evidence, he's not 'closed minded' at all, he just goes with the facts and what the research suggests, he is a scientist afterall, this is what scientist's do, they go with logic and facts based on tests and research.

Yes you're right science has not proven how it all started but it is getting closer every minute. At least it offers a logical proposal of it all.

The 'supreme being' idea may be right but there just isn't any evidence to even think about this, possibly just a book with a few good stories. Science and scientists cannot possibly go with such little evidence, they are here to prove things behond reasonable doubt. If a true scientist finds evidence that suggests a supreme being then he would submit that evidence and express that the odds are with a supremem being but this is not the case.

How can you say 'To suggest that god is a delusion is just as unsupported by evidence as to suggest he exists' when there is absolutely no evidence at all to suggest that a God does exist ? At least evolution has some substance, some evidence, evolution ideas are far more feasible than a supreme being (based on evidence).

It never ceases to amaze me that sane, intelligent people believe a book of nice stories and contradictive ideals than believe the possibility based on research and evidence that evolution ideas have a far higher probabilty of being true.

Yes, no one can be 100% right but no one can be 100% right that the earth will continue to rotate tomorrow but the odds are in our favour based on the knowledge we have today that it will rotate tomorrow. We have more knowledge now than we did hundreds/thousands of years ago and we can now live with that knowledge.

I think someone else posted that the only reason religion/god exists is because it helps us get through the idea of death. We don't know about death and the unknown scares us, religion/god provides the answer and a conclusion. It's very nicey, nicey and if you get comfort from it then that's okay but don't ever suggest that it has any evidence that it is the truth.

The 'Thank God' phrase has as much substance to it as 'May The Force Be With You' (Star Wars for those who are too young to remember ) and I have no problem whichever suits your way of thinking. The point I'm making is that although one is a film and one is a book, and if we discovered either of them in in book format 100's of years ago none would be more believable than the other.

Maybe a crap analogy but just my opinion of course......

Now Darwin is an evidence man, he goes out and investigates and then draws his conclusion on what he finds. Quite a normal thing to do for a guy who has intelligence, in fact quite normal thing for anyone with any inclination.

Harry Potter is a wonderful story and yes it would be wonderful to believe that such magic exists. But we all know that the odds are against it being true, it's minutely possible and there's no real evidence but really we know it's not feasible.

But if you're into magic and you cannot imagine life without magic then it suddenly becomes a possibility.

As long as we're happy and we don't hurt anyone then believe what you want, just don't accuse another belief of being wrong without any logical alternative.

Be happy

Cofton

What bugs me about Dawkins and his kind are they are just as closed minded about things as the relgious ones.

Science has not yet actually proven how it all started. As I posted before, it is certainly possible that the suns, planets, life etc started by chance. In fact given an infinite amount of time, with all the ingredients in place it absolutely would happen by chance.

However, just because something could happen by chance and does not need a "creator" does not constitute proof that it did happen by chance. I'm reminded of the simpson episode where Lisa creates a science experiment where people evolve. Who is to say that when we finally work everything out we don't find we are some experiment?

Further to that science hasn't worked out how the whole physical world came into existence in the first place. Now again, we may work it all out one day and who's to say the answer isn't that some "supreme being" used the mechanism of the big bang to start everything off?

To suggest that god is a delusion is just as unsupported by evidence as to suggest he exists. The only truly scientific viewpoint supported by the current evidence is "we don't know one way or the other".

Cheers,
PKFFW

 

[temptrader]

I dunno about that. One alien film I saw used binary. Zero takes on a whole new meaning. Have you considered aliens using HEX?

Aliens can use what ever number base they like. Binary is base 2, Hex is base 16. They could be using base 231 or 1729 (=10^3 + 9^3 = 12^3 + 1^3) for all I care. The primes will come out the same, and so will the concept of zero, and the concept of "1".

Not sure what you mean here? My analogy was that zero doesn't exist yet you are quite happy to believe in it's existence because it is so useful for your purpose.

Again, wrong end of the stick. It probably possible to have all the others present without "1" existing yet, or the other way round - depends on your axiom system. Why single out zero? Why not single out A*e^x? Under differentiation it remains the same and is the only non constant function to do so, does that point to the possibility that God put it there, would you put forward that as evidence? The issue is laugable!!

Not really. Computers are merely billions of transistors that switch on/off - true/false - 010101 - in making decisions. You can program them to carry out complex string manipulation. Even language interpretes are available on babblefish now days.

I know what computers are physically, I was merely pointing to the logical equivalence of their operations to string manipulation. You can ask a logic gate designer to make such and such a behaviour on operations of 0s and 1s to be what you want it to be. Multiplication by 2 is an extra padding of a 0 at the end of the binary number, division by 2 neglecting remainder is deletion of last digit in binary number etc, etc. . .

You are misquoting me again. I said it's useful in filling in the blanks. What we don't know it explains reasonably well. No more than anyones black whole theory based on millions/billions of light years away.

"filling in the blanks" with unfalsifiable concepts that has nothing to do with science. How is that "useful"? People do science because - ultimately - they want to understand things better. Either that or there are practical reasons: making things faster (in the case of computers, cars, jet engines etc. . .), slowing things down (like rates of infection of disease, control of growths of nasty parasites/pests reproductions), making things more efficient, strengthening things, making things large, making things to very low tolerances etc. . . etc. . the list goes on.

On the contrary, NOT having a God to fill in the blanks, would leave science the way it is. And black holes are experimentally/theoretically verifiable concepts, and if you don't want to accept that then me and a few others are only too happy to start an appeal to raise money to send you and your other "there must be a God somewhere in all this because of such and such a universal concept appearing in everyday life" crowd into space and jet you off to the nearest Black Hole so you can feel what it's like to go through such an irresistible force that bends time as well. Oh, and take PKFFW and Firewalker99 with you too, no doubt they'll be holding hands . . .

 

[Atilla]

Aliens can use what ever number base they like. Binary is base 2, Hex is base 16. They could be using base 231 or 1729 (=10^3 + 9^3 = 12^3 + 1^3) for all I care. The primes will come out the same, and so will the concept of zero, and the concept of "1".

I don't understand what good are prime numbers to someone who uses HEX? Can you have negative HEX numbers? In which case what good is zero?

Again, wrong end of the stick. It probably possible to have all the others present without "1" existing yet, or the other way round - depends on your axiom system. Why single out zero? Why not single out A*e^x? Under differentiation it remains the same and is the only non constant function to do so, does that point to the possibility that God put it there, would you put forward that as evidence? The issue is laugable!!

Look TempTrader you are obviously a very bright guy. Can you not see that zero represents something that does not exist.

By virtue of definition nothing and zero don't exist. So for you to labour the point they do means you are in denial.





"filling in the blanks" with unfalsifiable Is this a double barrel whopper. Unfalse = true??? You getting your grey cells into a right muddle. :cheesy:concepts that has nothing to do with science. How is that "useful"? People do science because - ultimately - they want to understand things better. Either that or there are practical reasons: making things faster (in the case of computers, cars, jet engines etc. . .), slowing things down (like rates of infection of disease, control of growths of nasty parasites/pests reproductions), making things more efficient, strengthening things, making things large, making things to very low tolerances etc. . . etc. . the list goes on.

On the contrary, NOT having a God to fill in the blanks, would leave science the way it is. And black holes are experimentally/theoretically verifiable concepts You talking tosh now. Absolute rubbish. Black hole is so large even light can't escape it's gravity. Show me the proof and what do you base this on., and if you don't want to accept that then me and a few others are only too happy to start an appeal to raise money to send you and your other "there must be a God somewhere in all this because of such and such a universal concept appearing in everyday life" crowd into space and jet you off to the nearest Black Hole so you can feel what it's like to go through such an irresistible force that bends time as well. Oh, and take PKFFW and Firewalker99 with you too, no doubt they'll be holding hands . . .

I don't have a problem with science. I embrace it and recognise and accept it's findings. Why do you feel so threatened by my simple approach to attribute to a Godly supreme creator all those things science has not explained which I find comfort in.

I thought JTrader put it well admiring beautiful awesome nature and marvelling at the creator of this environment. Don't need to say anymore but sigh and accept.Don't need to be part of any organised religion to believe imo.

I'm happy to sit in my armchair and leave scientists to get on with their jobs of discovery.

 

[PKFFW]

"aids in the logical reasoning of a problem"

Well why don't you try using it

You are being unprofessional n_t............do you see or don't you see?

You are using the wrong tool for the job..........do you see or don't you see?

You, who are so big on using the right too for the job surely must see?

As temptrader has pointed out, and I agree, the existence of God is not currently an issue of science. It is a thing science can not hope to fathom at this stage. So why use a scientific tool? Totally unprofessional!

Faith is a personal choice and by its definition picks up where logic, reasoning, evidence and proof leaves off. Do you see or don't you see?

Cheers,
PKFFW