Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

Seeing someone killed and then come back to life would be pretty compelling evidence.

Seeing most of the miracles would be. Water to wine? Sign me up for that religion!

Unfortunately I don't have time to watch that right now, but hopefully I'll get to it later. My understanding of the parallel universes theory (sorry-- "hypothesis" for the pedants) is that it differs significantly from theories about multiple universes on the same time/space dimension that we're on. But I'm certainly no astrophysicist/astronomer.



Again, this assumes that something was created from nothing. Never in the history of science has this been witnessed-- in fact, we have scientific laws that say that it doesn't happen (e.g., conservation of matter, conservation of energy). Some scientists posit/support exceptions for the Big Bang-- others don't.

As best we can tell, the universe has always existed. The confusion for many people is that there's a difference between the universe and the universe as we know it. For example, we know that the universe is expanding, but we have no basis for assuming that the expanding universe that we know of is all of the actual universe. What we think of as the universe could easily be only a tiny, isolated collection of cosmic masses and energies-- not even nearly everything. We have no reason to believe that other universes don't exist outside our limited powers of observation-- not even on some seemingly pseudoscientific quantum abstract fourth dimension-- just on the same temporal/spatial plane as what we think of as the universe. And do you know what might likely cause a Big Bang? Two "universes" colliding, which is an inevitability even if there are only two of them.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 1:57pm by Kachi

I think what you mean to say is that you can't wrap your head around the idea of infinity, so it doesn't sound logical to you. In actuality, it is entirely logical.

No, I meant exactly what I said. It isn't any more logical in reference to what I was saying. "Something always existing" allows us to say "God simply exists". Either way, you haven't provided anything that excludes a supernatural occurrence or event, which is kinda sorta my point.

And so religion changes, adapts, and evolves.

And interesting article about perhaps one of the next biggest retcons in (Christian) religion.

And I might as well link today's.

Edited, Apr 29th 2011 5:15pm by Allegory

I'm not being pedantic, they don't mean the same thing. Sorry.

I saw those billboards as well. Why hasn't the media picked up on this?

To be fair, the billboards just say May 21....no year. Pretty easy backpedaling on that one.

Not true. And for the hell of it I looked up the URL blasted on her car:
http://www.wecanknow.com/

I'm a little late to respond to this, but I feel it needs addressing.

This quote reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science does not prove anything, it only disproves. The scientific method helps us to put forth theories that make the most sense based on evidence. It also helps us to disprove theories that evidence contradicts or that can be more easily explained. Science progresses through disproving theories that don't hold up to testing and evidence and by replacing those theories with theories that hold up to testing.

Furthermore, the very idea of a scientific truth is inherently at odds with the scientific method itself. Truths don't have to be tested or scrutinized, because they are true. Science, which continually progresses with new findings, would halt if people accepted anything as true.