Because science knows EVERYTHING..

But for right now, you must deal with the activities on your own street. Put one foot in front of the other to keep from falling down.

 

Hence the word "subjective" No realist will deny that subjective evaluations of reality contradict but that was hardly the point. Reality itself does not contradict itself. That was the topic. As long as you're not trying to trojan horse statements about reality itself in with statements about mind-dependent perceptions of reality.

 

I would say we know much too little to be making definitive statements about the Ultimate Nature of Reality.

 

Man u are talking about dead reality just rock and ice. what i am saying there is no point to reality like that. I am talking about reality's that actualy matter the ones we have in our minds.

 

All is Mind.


As I said.

 

science does not say god doesn't exist

science does not say science knows everything

science is a process of asking questions in such a way as to be answered by evidence that what can actually and honestly be reliably observed, thus providing tentative but useful answers.

nothing more, nothing less, nothing else.

this does however make it considerably more useful in most everyday situations, then beliefs, which are for the most part, speculations to which people have become adamantly emotionally attached.

 

Yeah man but facts of sciences begin with a one's man belief and then in most cases becomes an emotional attachment do to the sciences community's disbelief in it.

 

Science generally explains 'how' things work, but when you come to a very basic 'why' it falls apart. Yes, gravity follows these rules in this way under these circumstances...but why?

While plenty of Militant Internet Atheists will try to invalidate that question, it's pretty much the core of why science and the question of a God can exist next to one another perfectly well instead of trying to edge one another out.

 

Hey, Grim,

I had you understood for a while there, that is the part for why the world can fall apart for a reduction to fallacies about substantially moralized content; why should we be moral this way rather than that way?

But then you lost me on that "gravity" thing. Are you at an analogy or an observable event?

 

It's not that God can't exist, it's just that the odds of him existing are astronomically low.

It's not impossible for any given thing you make up to exist, but that doesn't mean you should believe in it. It isn't science, it's common sense.

 

How did you calculate those odds?

 

Did you know there are some people in the world who have never heard of spaghetti?

I'm not going to bother.

 

All I can say is Scientology, realy were we invaded by reptiles ??? lol

 

Why yes I did.

Is that because it is a totally fabricated statistic?

 

Haha, you mad.

 

The probability of god's existence is very low because god is proposed to be complex and the odds of a complex being coming into existence without being created by a more complex being or achieving complexity through Darwinian processes are very low.

 

U can get complexity from simplicity.

God's fingerprint https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA5QoTMvsiE"]YouTube- My Mandelbrot fractal animation

 

Complexity only arises from simplicity, which is why it is a bad move to invoke god. God is complex, so the existence of god does nothing to explain the complexity of biological entities. It makes much more sense to suggest that the complexity of biological entities formed from simple forms through Darwinian processes.

 

Agreed. Its common sense. Sure, there's no way to disprove a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they exist or even have a pliable chance of existing.

 

I have no clue what u are trying to say.


Allot of ppl may believe god created the universe set the clock works in to motion and let it run, u could except god and evolution at the same time because evolution is gods creation as is everything.


Are u saying that if god does exist he would be a biological creature?