DBP, is there another source than the daily mail? :cringe:
The difference, Chad, is that no one here so far as I know accepts the any of the various multiverse theories totally, without exception, or claim them to be inviolable in nature. They are merely (at least to me) cool hypotheses that might explain some of the anomalies we see in the cosmos.
Also, these theories are the result of interpreting observed phenomena. Your religion does the exact opposite. You start with a conclusion, and sift out all of the evidence that contradicts said conclusion, and then claim perfect revelation.
The difference, Chad, is that no one here so far as I know accepts the any of the various multiverse theories totally, without exception, or claim them to be inviolable in nature. They are merely (at least to me) cool hypotheses that might explain some of the anomalies we see in the cosmos.
Also, these theories are the result of interpreting observed phenomena. Your religion does the exact opposite. You start with a conclusion, and sift out all of the evidence that contradicts said conclusion, and then claim perfect revelation.
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
