Aside from the great leaping shiteloads of circumstantial evidence, hearsay and eye witness testimony, there is also the historical model that nothing else can be shown to have no creator...
I find it interesting you can't offer any of that alleged evidence, other than the ravings of a mythical Mexican (why Mexican?) woman who claims to see God (sic - I think you mean Jesus) in a burrito.
Lots of people have all sorts of delusions. To paraphrase someone Dawkins quoted in his book, when one person has a delusion we call him insane; when lots of people share a delusion we call it "religion".
...and yet no psychological scrutiny is applied to your own willingness to accept a model of the universe with no physical precedent? Because, try as I might, I can see no distinction at all...
"[N]o physical precedent" or a "creator"? Those are two different concepts. The latter is the one which I (and, I believe) Dawkins are attacking.
As for your (false) allegation I have applied no scrutiny to my own psyche, I won't bother to answer that here. I am making no claim that I do know the answer to the origin of the universe, only that I see no good reason to accept your claim that you do.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim. I am saying, "We don't know how it all started; let's keep investigating the matter."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: DNA, God and SCK
Date: 2007-02-26 10:12 am (UTC)I find it interesting you can't offer any of that alleged evidence, other than the ravings of a mythical Mexican (why Mexican?) woman who claims to see God (sic - I think you mean Jesus) in a burrito.
Lots of people have all sorts of delusions. To paraphrase someone Dawkins quoted in his book, when one person has a delusion we call him insane; when lots of people share a delusion we call it "religion".
...and yet no psychological scrutiny is applied to your own willingness to accept a model of the universe with no physical precedent? Because, try as I might, I can see no distinction at all...
"[N]o physical precedent" or a "creator"? Those are two different concepts. The latter is the one which I (and, I believe) Dawkins are attacking.
As for your (false) allegation I have applied no scrutiny to my own psyche, I won't bother to answer that here. I am making no claim that I do know the answer to the origin of the universe, only that I see no good reason to accept your claim that you do.
You're the one making the extraordinary claim. I am saying, "We don't know how it all started; let's keep investigating the matter."