- May 17, 2009
- Reaction score
- Political Leaning
In answer to your first question, no. In fact, I would say that anything attempting to explain the origin of the existence of things is probably better thought of as an hypothesis, though there is some evidence for a very few of these hypotheses. The hypothesis that god did it is not one of these, and in fact that hypothesis has zero evidence. When you or anyone else indulges in accepting a hypothesis as true, you are engaging in faith. I do not accept any hypothesis about the origin of existence at this time.
In partial answer to your second question: one reason theories are better than faith is because they adjust as new evidence presents itself. They are flexible, where faith is not. If faith were to become flexible, it would no longer be faith, but rather reverts to a hypotheses, tentative, and uncertain. That is one small step in a better direction. A larger step in that direction is when hypotheses are subjected to testing, and a willingness to adjust them according to observable evidence. Yet another step in that direction is a willingness to abandon them when evidence is found which substantially contravenes them.
Theories are also better than faith because they have so much overwhelming evidence which supports them that the only rational course of action is to let them guide a significant part of your thinking and action as if you knew them to be fully proved. Faith has no such overwhelming evidence. Indulging in faith causes people to ignore evidence, twist facts, even causes people to lie to themselves and others. All with the aim of protecting that faith.
As such, theories are better than faith because they allow for and foster the pursuit of objective truth as an ideal, and even foster the pursuit of subjective truth. Despite people's notions otherwise, faith does the opposite, because it causes people to prematurely accept as true things which have zero evidence. Again, Faith, in other words, is the act of accepting an hypothesis as if it were true, before it is tested for evidence. And yet again, faith is anathema to truth, objective or otherwise.
There is no reason to accept a hypothesis as true, to engage in faith. In fact this would be slightly or greatly foolish, depending on the hypothesis.
So, what I have answered, actually, is why it is better to engage in evidence based acceptance of things, rather than faith based acceptance of things. I answered this question instead of the one you asked because you would have misunderstood my position if I had answered your question as if it were about accepting science's hypothesis on the origin as opposed to one of the myriad faith based hypotheses.
But, now to answer that question, it is indeed better to hold the scientific hypotheses in higher regard because they do have at least some evidence, whereas hypotheses about god doing it, and these are accepted on faith, do not.
As to why scientific hypotheses are better for science classes than faith based hypotheses: Scientific ones are falsifiable, faith based ones are not. Science demands a falsifiable hypothesis.
Finally, I will say this: just because you don't have an evidence based explanation for something you are not compelled to accept whatever explanation you prefer because it suits your taste or your sentiments. When people ask me, or I ask myself, "what is the origin of things?" I answer "we don't know". And we don't, neither you nor I do, nor does anyone else that we know of. You may believe something about the matter, but belief is not 'knowing'.
Well that's nothing new ask two yes or no questions get a 9 paragraph speech.
Bottom line you got no proof
Second answer what it's better to be an athiest cause are explanation is longer?
As far as how God works I do not know.
Once I suggested that perhaps God started evolution planted some ideas and sent the human race on it's way.
This idea was met with some greivous from bothe organized religion and athiest as well as agnostic.
The idea that this could happen according to organized religion God would have to have something to do with science that we can not tolerate.
The atheist and some agnostic said that this could never happen since science would have to be connected to God this we can not allow
Yet ask organized religion on the basis of the orgin of things they make a speech but have no proof but it can't b have anything to do with science.
Ask a faith believer they say I have faith but no proof
Ask an athiest they say we don't know but it can't be God or intellectual design.
If you truely don't know how do you know you can exclude anything??eace
You do know that each of your umm Hypotheses ends with the word theory do you not?
Flexible yet unproven?