(August 27, 2017 at 9:46 am)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Repeatability is not necessary for scientific evidence -- take paleontology, or astronomy, for instance.
Right. All that's required is that the predictions made about it are consistently accurate. THOSE kind of things are what's repeatable. You don't solve a murder by doing it over again but the evidence should be consistent with pointing to cause and culprit.
Religions were invented to impress and dupe illiterate, superstitious stone-age peasants. So in this modern, enlightened age of information, what's your excuse? Or are you saying with all your advantages, you were still tricked as easily as those early humans?
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
---
There is no better way to convey the least amount of information in the greatest amount of words than to try explaining your religious views.
