I beg to differ and I don't quite understand as my mother tongue is not english but it seems to me that the above is an insult to God.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
I beg to differ and I don't quite understand as my mother tongue is not english but it seems to me that the above is an insult to God.
More precisely, it is a critique of the idea of explanations of the natural world coming from a supernatural source. Premature sobrenaturalism is a fallacy.
Begging to differ with Mr. Degrasse and his brethren, but the more one finds out the more one discovers it could not all have been an accident, statement is based much more on desire for it to be so than credible evidence.
@Wilx thank you for the time to read and for your comments. I totally agree with you, thanks for the back-up. Blessings!
The scientists disagree with the necessity of the supernatural to explain the natural world. And no wonder most of them do not believe in the supernatural.
For science the world is naturalistic, until proven otherwise.
That is the problem with most scientists, logical conclusions are dismissed because they can't see it with their eyes.. yet believe a fairy tale of beyond astronomical odds can actually occur.
The natural world and the factual truth does not have to agree with human logic.T Logic alone is not enough to say if something is a scientific truth. That is why we need to make experiments, to see if the theoretical conclusions agree with what is objectively observed in the factual world.
Scientists agree the odds of all this being a result of chance are too high to compute. It is based on the evidence acquired. You are free to believe that it could all have somehow still occur, best to you.
No, you don't calculate the odds of an event after it happened. Only before.