Separate names with a comma.
That may be what Deepak Chopra says. Have you been watching "what the bleep do we know? No physicist would tell you brains create universes....
Tripp. This is the part you don't get. The claim of atheism comes from the utter lack of evidence for god. There just is not point in claiming...
And Tripp misses that theories like the multiverse theory at least are compatible with physical law and can be deduced from mathematics. The same...
There is no reason to believe philosophy other than science has something useful to say about the universe. All descriptions of the universe that...
Oh no. The multiverse idea has a theoretical physics foundation that does not violate known physical laws. The same can not be said of the God...
Deepak Chopra is portrayed as an intellectual figure among real scientists in the Microsoft ads. Enough said.
Wouldn't you include God with those mythical things? According to the bible he violates the laws of physics quite frequently. But it is also...
I think Daniel was being facetious regarding the werewolf explanation. Take any other mythical figure like my asensical werewolf (which doesn't...
Ah! But I misspoke. I was referring to the even more elusive asensical werewolf. It is asensical because it can not be perceived by any human...
Tripp. Using your logic would imply that people that do bit believe in werewolves are irrational. Daniel put it best. There is no evidence...
Tripp. Using your logic would imply that people that do bit believe in werewolves are irrational. Daniel put it best. There is no evidence for...
True. But you'll notice they are speaking ex cathedra. Just like Francis Collins. I remember reading "The emperors new clothes" by Penrose, an...
The problem is no one has suggested that this or any other current physical concept suggests god could exist. Again, it is like every other...
We'll cross that bridge if we get to it. Right now there doesn't seem to be one.
Quite the opposite. I think agnostics regard too much what we're incapable of measuring/perceiving. Even if it doesn't exist...
And there is no evidence for anything but a materialistic point of view. Anything else at its core is wishful thinking, even when it is discussed...
Unfortunately the agnostic argument is that "anything can happen". If applied to everyday living it would be undistinguishable from religious...
This is incorrect logic. You are assigning a probability of 50% to each event. 1. God exists 2. God does not exist. There is no evidence...
I have to try the touchpad before I make up my mind. It is one of those things you have to use a few days before reaching a conclusion....
It's nonsense. College dorm rhetoric.
