(March 13, 2015 at 2:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: So, an argument from ignorance Lek? We have no answer yet so we make one up and stick to it? How does that help?
I don't discount any possibility, that's what being an agnostic atheist is. But it doesn't mean I accept suggestions backed by nothing but assertion.
We have no way to evaluate how likely a "creator" is, having no experience of one, and not even knowing if such a thing is possible.
And if there is a creator, why should I care?
We have to go back to basics to actually understand how the universe came about, how human beings and other organisms came about and how we share certain features. This is only hypothetical of course, but if God created man in his own image and he created the animals, how could he have got it so wrong? It is said that he created animals such as snakes, whales, hippos, lions, tigers, bears, sharks etc etc ad nauseum. However, how can someone so give what could be described as legs to an animal that slithers along the ground? What is the point of whales still having vestigial organs i.e. legs again when they live in water and have done for some time. Are we really to believe that God created perfect beings in the hope that they might change their habitats over a certain period of time?
Another difference is the way of thinking between creationists and those who believe in natural selection. Religious people i.e. Catholics, Muslims are very closed-minded people. On the otherhand, the way Dawkins and Krauss dealt with one person by clearly stating that they are welcome to be challenged by any of their students and given a better solution. If it is a better solution, then scientists will test it and see if it rings true, what you might call the next step in the learning process of how earth came about. It is only a matter of time before Scientists will get the break they need and religion will die off.
