Quote:
Now with this understanding people can no longer discount God simply because they cannot see Him, because the property of invisibility is also shared with these strange undefinable particles.


All of those particles we can't see, we confirm exist through other means, such as infrared, gravitation, etc, etc.

Either that, or the particles are inferred by other models. They must exist, for example, to maintain the law of conservation of mass or energy.

There is no empirical evidence for a God nor are there any strong enough inferences. So science doesn't give a god any credit.

Quote:

Who is to say God exists or doesn't exist? Maybe He is comprised of some particles, energy or quantum packets which we have yet to understand? Maybe He created the world with processes we don't yet understand. Its foolish and presumptous to assume that it cannot be true.


Its foolish to make "scientific" theories about unconfirmed objects (ex: God).

There are thousands of religions, which Creation are we to teach in a science class? Judeo-Christian? Islam? Hindu? Shinto? Wouldn't it be biased to teach only one of them? Evolution, on the other hand, is not a religion.

Last edited by heinekenbottle; 01/05/09 16:21.
I was once Anonymous_Alcoholic.

Code Breakpoint;