What the hell are you babbling on about. That's a ridiculous way to view things. If you don't understand the logical reasoning for naming things and can't accept that basic science, then you really shouldn't be in threads like these. You know you travelled the atlantic because people before you have mapped out the world, we've gone to great lengths to map these out, your pilot will tell you, you can look up routes, and they commonly fly a certain way to get to certain places, chances are you flew over whatever Ocean is normally flown over. These things can be calculated without a problem.
The very idea that you're proposing is ridiculous and places too little trust in Sciences.
Anything you say seems to place too little trust in "religion".
Religion cannot be proven, but until it's proven it should not be trusted, just like me saying that there's a Flying Spaghetti Monster roaming around.
So you're saying you can't ever trust religion. I think we should read over our sentences before posting paradoxical statements.
The concept is ridiculous and without thinking you can easily throw the idea aside because it's illogical and has no founding what so ever. The only difference between 'God' and this is the extent to which religion spread at that time
(because people were a LOT stupider back then and easier to brain wash).
You can say this all you want, but read this article;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claims_...owing_religion
So you're saying that people who convert are stupid, and so all these people must be stupid/peasants/lowlives, while you're some highrolling baller on a throne? I doubt your integrity's any better than theirs.
Yes, they all set out to explain the same things but the problem is that religion set out to explain everything conveniently and is too ancient to be reliable. All science is reliant on empiricism and
scientific method.
Please define the scientific method for me. If I recall correctly (as in don't put up a post saying NO UR RONG, but rather enlighten me as to what really happened), Darwin made up evolution studying finches on the Galapagos Islands, and everyone jumped to accept it.
It's simple, logical, and
applies to everything.
Doesn't really apply to emotions does it? Feelings of (for example) trust and love are still inexplicable with science.
Science is used to map out the world among us, logic is used as a guideline. Science can only be wrong in how things interact that we have yet to try, but most are actually tried unless they may be too dangerous or are currently impossible. With that said,
science rarely (read: almost never if not never) attempts to prove something it can't explain.
Neither does religion. You can't understand God. You can know about him, but you can't really know how "God" the entity works. The one who decides he understands God is one who truely does not understand God at all.
You also throw around the word theory as if it's lightly used in the scientific world when it's not, it's reserved for ideas unopposed that hold strongest to explain a certain phenomenon logically and empirically.
God is a pretty logical solution to all the questions that haven't been answered by science if you put it that way. If we assume God is an infinite entity, then we can safely say that He also can create what we considered constants for a long time (ie, time, which is apparently no longer a constant thanks to Einstein), and therefore could have existed before the universe was formed.