Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

Conversely, your approach is to insert God into the places that science (currently) can't explain adequately.

Can science explain it at all.

You accept it even though you can't explain it, and you expects others to accept it even though you can't explain it. How nice.

I say God did it.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Can science explain it at all.

If you had your way, whould they ever bother to try?

You accept it even though you can't explain it, and you expects others to accept it even though you can't explain it. How nice.

I say God did it.

Which you can't explain -- funny that.

 

[Cabal]

Can science explain it at all.

You accept it even though you can't explain it, and you expects others to accept it even though you can't explain it. How nice.

I say God did it.

What are you talking about? I'm not asking anyone to accept anything. I told you, there is currently no definite idea on what initiated the expansion - and LCDM doesn't explain that, it STARTS with an expanding universe.

At the same time, being able to explain back to 10^-43 second after the expansion started is pretty good going, and is consistent with all assumptions made.

And this whine of yours does nothing to change the fact that your argument incorporates bad God-of-the-gaps logic and a false dichotomy. God's gaps are getting smaller all the time, and there is no reason to expect a conclusive empirical proof of God when faith is choice based.

Put God in the gaps and you'll be constantly retreating in the face of science. Or you can use proper logic and be a lot more credible. Your choice.

 

[ChrisBot]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically closed.
The new thread automatically created is here: "Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (3)"