The most important unresolved scientific questions, in my opinion.

It's the belief that there is some part of us that is reasoning and using logic to make decisions.
Your view of the world is even more deterministic than ancient Greek idea of fate or Christian idea of God. It is a theory of slavery.
 
Well, he just said things tend to fall down. Yet, it is true.
Aristotle thought there were innate properties of matter that caused them to seek their natural state of being. Stones had the immanent property that they wanted to be at the center of the earth; fire had the innate property that it wanted to move towards the heavens.

But it is true that just saying our brain has thoughts, and that electrons and molecules induce electrical impulses doesn't actually explain anything
 
Aristotle thought there were innate properties of matter that caused them to seek their natural state of being. Stones had the immanent property that they wanted to be at the center of the earth; fire had the innate property that it wanted to move towards the heavens.
Well, science moves by testing.
 
Well, science moves by testing.

Simple - there is evidence that what was initially thought to be an expanding universe may actually be a curvature to space. Much like early navigators thought that going too far in the ocean would cause a ship to fall off due to the curvature of the earth creating the illusion of an edge.

The only evidence for a big bang is an expanding universe. If the universe is not in fact expanding, if what assumed to be expansion is nothing more than curved space then there is nothing to support the big bang.

Science is exploration and discovery - often times we discover that we were wrong about pet theories.
How do you know the universe is expanding? Are you presuming there is a boundary of some sort to the universe? How are you observing it?
 
I'm not blindly guessing. I'm looking at the evidence, or lack of in this case, and applying the same logic I've applied to people who claim to be psychic or astrologists who claim the stars predict your life.

There's no more evidence for the Christian God than there is for any god mentioned in the Iliad or Odyssey, leprechauns, fairy god mothers, Santa Claus, etc.

All we have a man-witten books. No evidence beyond that.
You are making a blind guess.

The fact that there is no evidence for the Christian God IS NOT PROOF that there are no gods. And you are quite clearly asserting that there are no gods.

Give it up. There is no logic to that choice.
 
You are making a blind guess.

The fact that there is no evidence for the Christian God IS NOT PROOF that there are no gods. And you are quite clearly asserting that there are no gods.

Give it up. There is no logic to that choice.
Why are your blind guesses more true than other blind guesses?
 
Billion of people believe in many gods because it makes them feel god., not because there's reason to believe.

I'd love to believe that, with the right thoughts bouncing around in my head, I could live forever in the clouds with my wife and kids.

If the blind guess that there are no gods helps make you feel more comfortable, happy, or safe...fine. Stick with it.

If you are going to make that blind guess and then try to sell it as logic and knowledge here in this forum...I am going to point out that there is no logic to your position.
 
Billion of people believe in many gods because it makes them feel god., not because there's reason to believe.

I'd love to believe that, with the right thoughts bouncing around in my head, I could live forever in the clouds with my wife and kids.
When discussing whether "there are gods" or "there are no gods"...that word you keep throwing around "believe" is nothing but a disguise for "blind guess."

Take another look at my take...and tell me what there is about it with regard to the question of whether there are any gods or not...that you find to be illogical.
 
If the blind guess that there are no gods helps make you feel more comfortable, happy, or safe...fine. Stick with it.

If you are going to make that blind guess and then try to sell it as logic and knowledge here in this forum...I am going to point out that there is no logic to your position.
There is. It's called a circular argument. That is NOT a fallacy.

The circular argument is also called the Argument of Faith. All religions are based on some initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that.

?A->A is a valid logical expression...perfectly logical.


The Circular Argument fallacy only occurs when one tries to prove a circular argument True (which is not possible). This is what a fundamentalist does.

Examples of fundamentalist based religions are the Church of No God, certain "Christian" evangelical churches (Christ never taught compulsion), the Church of Climate Change, the Church of Green, etc.
 
Back
Top