''Yes, Scientists believe in God''.

[Purple Rabbit]

Do you ever wonder if our reasoning could lead us to false conclusions? I've dabbled a bit in philosophy but it tends to go over my head, but one thing that struck me was Zeno's paradox. We can imagine a scenario where we will never arrive at our destination if we apply Zeno's logic. Could it be that you guys are applying your logic (e.g god is more improbable/complex than the universe hence more unlikely) to the idea of 'god' and it looks right, but it may not be?

Of course we should be questioning our reasoning itself and in fact that's what is going on in philosophy and philosophy of science right now. But science does not have to investigate every supernatural claim. Firstly any supernatural entity would defy explanation itself, it would solve nothing but the urge to fill gaps in human understanding with placebo's. Secondly, competing supernatural claims show no urge and have no method to resolve truth claims among themelves. Why should a rational investigation bother with this reconciliation issue if religion itself shows no intention to get that job done. Religion provides no tranparent method to choose the right god(s) from many gods. Hence the choice would be arbitrary. In fact, in most cases any god (not only the ones invented so far), be it a benevolent or malevolent one, would provide plugs to the gaps in human understanding.

We have come a long way since Zeno. Zeno 's paradox shows that without observation of nature, human thought is clueless. Where science has concluded to give special credit to observation in nature, religion has chosen not to follow and remains rigid in unverifiable dogma, interpreted by mere men. The religious type is lagging behind with Zeno, holding on to dogma's created in the mind , the rational empiricist acknowledges observational facts and places them at the center of a tentative truth.