Mlodinow & Hawking on Model-Dependent Realism

So, basically, you want science to stay away from your faith because it can (and has) provided evidence contrary to most matters of faith, and you feel there is a necessity for people to believe things strictly on faith but science comes in and fucks that up, what with it's facts and all. Is that about right? This shines through with your frog-god and how science can provide evidence that this deity is not necessary, but you claim that people would still wish to hold on to this notion: mainly because, IMO, it makes them .....feel good?Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

Argument? No. This is a discussion/debate board and you made a claim that you no longer wish to discuss. Given the nature of this board, your statement raised substantial, warranted ire. The first thing that I thought when I read it was "that's funny, because people of faith sure seem to want to muck about with science" but you want science to leave your faith alone. Surely you can see why it was brought to light......

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

There's this phenomena called "creationism". Perhaps you are familiar with it? Sometimes it is referred to as Intelligent Design.

---

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.