{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/6/2015 4:22:20 PM
1
That's still no reason to believe in him. Did you even read the OP?
English
-
but there's also no reason [i]not[/i] to believe in Him.
-
Do you believe in a microscopic invisible fairy that lives on the end of your nose? After all there is no reason not to since its impossible to prove it doesn't exist
-
I acknowledge the potential of their existence, and that is all I ask of you.
-
So why do you believe in them less than God based on the same evidence? I'm not asking you to do with them what you wish me to do with God I'm asking why you treat them differently. I acknowledge it's possible for a god to exist but I also realise the correct default position when there is no evidence either way is not to believe. Laws are pushed for based on God after all and this affects not just those that believe in him
-
I believe in God more than fairies simply because I find Him more believable. it's my arbitrary set of beliefs and I'm sticking to 'em. and for the record, I'm all for the separation of church and state.
-
So social conditioning then? Surely you can see that this is a bad reason to believe? Which is the point of the op if I recall that there is no good reason to believe?
-
what makes you believe the big bang theory? scientists say it's true and you believe them.
-
I accept a scientific theory as the current best explanation when there is evidence and reasons to believe it. When multiple scientists have examined evidence it also helps greatly. You see the difference between a bunch of scientists agreeing and a bunch of theologians is that from the off the theologians want to confirm that God exists, when scientists peer review the work of another scientists they are looking for the mistakes and holes rather than just to have their bias confirmed. The scientific method demands that work is checked by independent scientists before it is widely accepted. I guarantee that just about every scientist would love to be the one to find evidence of God for example. Anyone that disproves evolution or finds evidence of the supernatural is going to insta win a Nobel prize and have their name go down in history. The one that found the latest bit of evidence backing up an existing theory or furthering it's understanding slightly however will be forgotten and their contribution to humanity anonymous practically
-
There's also no reason [i]not[/i] to believe in magic flying monkeys. Pascal's wager is a shit argument, kid.
