RichardM1 wrote:
It went from a Newtonian place, where a god could only interact by breaking physics, to one where the fundamental fabric is open to manipulation, without destruction of the rules it was built on. As I have been saying all along, there is no proof, either for, or against. If the hand of God comes out and thumps me in the head, right in front of you, you'll say "just an alien". You will always be able to point to the unknown and say that's the only place a god could operate. The universe was set up that way. First, we are not smart enough to know everything, except at a very abstract level. Second, If you believe in God, as described in the Bible, it is clear there can be no proof for God. God specifically calls out that faith is required, not knowledge, so unknown is built right in. I'm sure you will agree with the first reason.
Or, from another perspective, it went from a world where we could only explain natural phenomena through deities, to one where we understand how things work, right down to the quantum level. But see, science teaches us that there IS an explanation, though we may not know it yet. Religion tries to teach you that their answer is correct, but there will NEVER be proof. Never. The entire argument for the existence of "god" is "Trust me." That, to me, kills its credibility entirely. And if the argument FOR the existence of "god" has no credibility, then why should I even consider the possibility to be statistically significant? Since I have no "faith," and therefore no reason to believe in "god," then why should the possibility of its existence be weighted equally?
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)