Soleron said:
You can't have understood his book then. His book is NOT primarily about arguing that God does not exist. He first argues that the rational position is not agnosticism ("no one knows") but atheism ("probably no God, with scientific conviction")*, and then, for two-thirds of the book, explains where religion comes from, why it is bad regardless of its truth and how we can solve the real underlying problem of irrationality. *His main point is that, just because something can't be decided either way, that doesn't imply a 50% probability of it being true. You don't believe in fairies, but there isn't a 50% chance of fairies existing. |
Seems like an illogical hypothisis from a scientific standard.
I mean... look at how scientists approach things.
They see something they don't understand and ask a question.
"Why"
Then they come up with a hypothisis for why... and keep with that hypothisis believing in it and expiermenting with it until they prove or disprove it.
It's not a matter of "Do pink faeries exist." or "Does god exist"
It's a question of "Why does everything exist."
God is simply the hypothisis to that answer.
Just how something like Dark Energy was the hypothisis to why the universe is expanding, despite the fact there was no actual proof for such a thing. Or Ether... which was a hypothsis for... I forget what it was a hypothisis for now... something with why light travels "slower" in some areas?
Until
A) Another hyptohisis is proven.
or
B) Your hypothisis is disproven.
It's just as likely as any other outcome scientifically.
