RE: Here's why Creatards might be right
October 30, 2015 at 11:55 pm
(This post was last modified: October 31, 2015 at 12:04 am by ErGingerbreadMandude.)
(October 30, 2015 at 11:48 pm)jenny1972 Wrote:(October 30, 2015 at 11:37 pm)Irrational Wrote: Fair enough answer. So then when we say we don't know what led to the existence of the laws of nature, it should be an acceptable answer as well. It should not mean that, therefore, God must exist. Because God, after all, suffers the same problems: our ignorance of its origins/causes (assuming God exists, of course).
yes of course its an acceptable answer you shouldnt say you have it all figured out noone does unless theyre religious
i dont think God must exist because of any lack of knowledge about something thats not my reason for believing in God because of a lack of answers from science
Well, as long as someone provide some evidence. The existence of God because of lack of evidence from science is as credible as the existence of unicorn that puked rainbows which formed rules for particles to interact with each other.
The point is, no idea is credible without any evidence, of course you can choose from a variety of ideas to believe in by you shouldn't go "I don't think God must exist..." your thinking should be like "I don't think God might exist..."
You dig?
You shouldn't fixate on an idea because science doesn't have a clue.
Read my topic title for example "Here's why Creatards might be right" it's not "Here's why Creatards must be right".
That's because I don't believe in fixating on an idea, keep an Open mind and have a good day!
Edit:
I do believe in fixating on an idea O.O Just not in this particular case O.O
Edit2:
x*0 = x
