Quote:
Originally Posted by LivT
I think you know exactly what I refer to. So, since we are getting down to picking bones...
I did not state that I can prove that God does not exist. I said science could.
God is a theoretical entity that is postulated by theists to explain various phenomena, such as the origin of the universe, the design of the universe, and the origin of living things. Modern science, however, can explain all of these phenomena without postulating the existence of God.
1. In the words of Laplace, science has no need of that hypothesis.
2 By demonstrating that God is not needed to explain anything, science has proven that there is no more reason to believe in the existence of God than to believe in the existence of phlogiston, the luminiferous ether, or Vulcan.
This may explain why more than 90% of the world's top scientists disbelieve or doubt the existence of God.
Scientists prefer natural explanations to supernatural ones, not because of any metaphysical bias on their part, but because natural explanations produce more understanding than supernatural ones. As Plato realized, to say that God did it is not to explain anything, but simply to offer an excuse for not having an explanation.
Hope this doesn't baffle you with science...too much.  |
It's a bit low cutting and pasting the words of more learned people and posting them as you own without credit, and then saying you hope it doesn't baffle someone [else] with science... too much. Your entire post is a direct, word for word cut and paste job from secularhumanism.org.
"
Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Albert Einstein. Who probably knew a little bit more about science than most of us.