(March 30, 2015 at 2:33 am)snowtracks Wrote:Summary: idiot who thinks he can fill that gap with a nonsensical god tries to lecture everyone else on why they shouldn't jump to conclusions on an unknown.(March 25, 2015 at 12:15 am)snowtracks Wrote: taking an indirect approach. If the two sources of knowledge - empiricism, rationalism - (http://www.theoryofknowledge.info/sources-of-knowledge/) were correctly applied, the answer to the question ‘Does the Universe exist for a purpose?’ would be inconclusive; empiricism or rationalism wouldn’t provide a definite answer one way or the other; hence the reason why revelation is needed. I incorrectly assumed that the board atheists would say the question is unanswerable and wouldn’t post an answer of ’no purpose’. Kudos to any atheist that didn't endorse.and the rest of you low-lifer's need to get on you knees and figure it out.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
